And not a single breath on, whether right or wrong in application of assumed law, the completely disproportionate response? I don't see how that fails to add a bit weight to the claim of violation.
In fact, I rather suspect if they had acted more reasonably and had simply chosen to tell McGowan, "you can't do that", he could have made a call and perhaps eventually, someone would have informed the relevant prison machine operators that, "oh yes he can".
Well, it seems a lot more like legal wrangling around a "moral right" - if you want to call it that in this case - of one party riding off of another's fame with an established phrase. Maybe don't try to trademark it and they don't care. Seems to have been that way forever in this particular case. It doesn't seem to be a direct part of law, so we do stupid things and sometimes end up with really stupid rulings and case law because of it.
Not sure what the obsession with constantly re-purposing and riffing off of popular or trademarked phrases and logos is about anyway, except people are rather uncreative and lazy and easily amused. Remix culture proponentism notwithstanding.
I'm not sure that anywhere in the most ridiculous claims of the up and coming "cloud" did providers and evangelists ever claim what the article seems to think it did. But then, i still see both humorous and serious commentary still, perhaps even more so as the trope has baked in, treating the cloud as this singular cloud, almost synonymous with the internet, that anyone just dumps anything into and anyone can pull it back out with any method they like. The cloud was never going to be like that, and it's always been an enterprise / provider feature that effectively has zero difference for the consumer. (It was supposed to be "transparent" after all. So what does it matter if you are actually assigned space on a particular storage device and a particular server or not, or if the server you are renting is virtual or not.) The weird mysterious individual consumer conception of the cloud... seems to have developed under it's own steam because the IT types kept throwing around the word "cloud" and marketeers for some reason though it was clever to use with respect to "home" consumers as well as businesses that actually know they are essentially buying into timesharing 2.0.
But who was ever going to sell you "hey you can do whatever you want" cloud when they have zero authority and ability to do so? (Never mind those who can't integrate their own related services, but will force on you service that you don't want integrated.)
"Stakeholders" are easier to cope with when they are fewer, smaller in representation, and more powerful vested-interest groups. "Everyone else" in any given situation is too much of a bother and really, who cares about them?
This isn't a propaganda op of the US gov. Rather, independent thinkers who recognize bullshit everywhere. It isn't the job of every article to report on some "other side" when pointing out current news of some insane bullshit somewhere. With the apparent desire for some tone that makes what Subject A does somehow "less bad". Fk this tu quoque noise. It is readily and regularly discussed here how ridiculous the US gov (or what/whom ever) are in this or other matters.
Indeed, the original source indicated incorrectly (for some reason), and was then blindly followed. How or why w0rm mis-posted is a more interesting bit. Lifelock is a ball of crap no matter how you slice it, and their behavior is unsurprising, if still stupid. (And if you automate such serious errors out of a Twitter feed, idkwtflol.)
Kind of weird how the AP article refers to SOVA Center as "Moscow-based Sova group", which is just a bit stupidly misleading. And of course also no links or any other references. Because the AP found out all this as original research with reporters interviewing the people of interest in person, right?
It seems an awful lot like random pro-extreme individuals, or people with simply an incoherent business plan, take it upon themselves to send these notices. And then... ?
Of all things, i see this as a very good target for a trademark infringement claim, the way that system operates.
Finally, is this in fact a huge troll, or are they for real in some way? It seems to brush up against Poe's Law an awful lot for me. If they go after every ad for some next blockbuster release, it would be hilarious.
It's also more demoralizing and harder to fight. They long, long ago figured out that direct, open tyranny or exploitation only works for so long, and there is no guaranteed return from that when it falls apart.
And yes, because some people love it, some people will condemn it on one side and defend it on the other, and others won't care until it personally affects them.
So, when he Streisands this all the way to the evening news, he's going to sue them if they show a pic of him or footage of this "street team" or refer to any of them by name? And apparently it will float, with this judge.
No one is allowed to say anything about anybody. Right to be Forgotten, here we come. Maybe we can also move into the sphere of law the Entitlement to be Noticed, bcs how totes American that would be too.
It's beyond that they "don't know the law", but they actively make (up) fact claims about the law. Ignorance is one thing. Invention is another. Not that ignorance should be excusable either. And people believe all sorts of wrong, terrible, and unconscionable things on "good faith".
Excepting the claim is not that they are infringing on any emojis (i.e., smiley representations. Which they are licensing if and where necessary. Have fun owning Unicode space, which is a good half of what emojis are.) The claim is over the word emoji. Which he did not invent and shouldn't be a valid claim for anyone to make, especially by 2013. If Sony used emojitown or emojiworld, there would be a somewhat reasonable and technically valid claim. And anyone who granted him a trademark simply on the word "emoji" is an idiot. Even "for use in television or film" or some such, and considering he hasn't used it that way, he seems like just another IP troll. ("I was on vacation in Craotia and thought about how i could make money off of nothing. In fact, well-established things that have been around for ages.")
Hate on Sony all you want, but this executive rather seems like a smaller version of the same BS you dislike about Sony. If and when they infringe on his merchandising space, he has a better claim. But he wants prior restrain in trademark space?
The only difference between small bullies and big bullies is their size and maybe how many lawyers they can use to prop up their sense of entitlement. The same bad system enables them both.
I think they are looking to go the Euro route and act like they are an incorporated extra-governmental agency/business beholden to no one and no rules other than accepting submissions for a fee and promoting the weird culture of corporations we are have.