They refused to even look for their contracts or records of rights. That's apathy. Their point-blank refusal is also apathy, if you want to go that way. Your suggestion is misleading.
"It's still unclear to me," he said, "with all the people that we dealt with, there wasn't anyone at either Warner Bros., Activision, or 20th Century Fox who said, 'Here's a copy of the contract that we have, and as you can see, we own all rights.' We don't know of any… we didn't see any of that documentation. And probably, without going to court, we never will."
Representatives for Warner Bros., Activision, and Fox could not comment by press time.
You advocate the wrong kinds of Socializmz. The kinds we decry as Socialism, (which has an embedded exclamation point) with our spittle-flecked mouths. Not the other kinds, which we emphatically deny are any kind of socialism at all. Because reasons.
Not sure why a selfie-stick should get a pass anywhere this sort of class of objects is banned already. The one that really screams out to me is (Brazilian, or any other) soccer matches. Yes yes, please do let everyone bring their photographic ordnance with them, it should be spectacular.
Well, sure, and since players are more likely to spend money on such a thing rather than actually securing anything in the first place, I'm sure it would make for interesting times when everyone can cyberstand their cyberground.
This is the same as for a world in which Grindr does not exist. Sometimes one is fooled, and the law doesn't like to take that into account, but also people like to pretend they are fooled when they are not. It's a grey area from an outside viewpoint. (Excepting cases where the minor is very clearly not of legal age.) But yes, if the person looks a little young, curb your hormones for a moment and either check or decline.
What about the 80% (imagined number) of people who are never anywhere near a water cooler? (And why don't office types save that for an actual break? Or would that cut into their porn surfing time?) ;)
Indeed, why is it that one can exclusively trademark names of people, living or dead, or even found in common folklore? I can see having a registration on particulars of the mark - design and such - but this is more idiotic than trademarking common existing words, phrases, concepts, and letters.
Maybe I should make an application for 'Eberhard Anheuser Soap-Flavored Nutritional Shakes' and see where that goes.
Fingerprint examination is the problem there, yes. No one matches whole prints on a regular basis, even when they have 2 whole prints to compare. Machines don't, either. But one could hope for tech companies getting it better if they are going to follow this rather stupid route for security.
If Uber is forced to suddenly take thousands of employees on board, along with the added expenses and liabilities such a move would entail,
The expenses of becoming a "traditional company" and those up-front costs of finding ways out of those expenses like "traditional companies". Then they can become a mega-corp and incur the expenses of buying politics to lower expenses and make law as they see fit.
Imagine all the employment opportunities and economic growth that entails!
It's news here regardless of of what any Republican news-milking agendas there might be, and whatever angle other news media has on this, and whatever anyone else did wrong, because she is the next person to be doing this incredibly stupid thing. There is a fair bit of history of people doing it wrong or intentionally playing games before or after the fact. As was noted about members of the Bush administration doing so quite on purpose (where there was much whining about what should be archived by the government or subject to FOIA requests, because dumbasses trying to be clever don't realize (or care) the email they sent using Google or whatever is still sitting in their mail client's sent box and quite possibly in the archived user mailboxes on the government computers and servers).
It would be in the news here, very likely, even if most of the rest of the media universe had ignored it, once it was discovered. You can make a claim of partisanship in some cases as a counter-argument to some statements made elsewhere (and maybe in the comments here), but that isn't what techdirt is about, and that claim isn't a counter to anything in the article.