The taxi drivers are all upset at Uber and not upset at the local government charging outrageous costs for taxi licenses.
I assume they don't want the government to lower the barriers to entry and thus increase competition. They want the government to keep the barriers in place because they've already gotten past them. The problem (to them) is not that the cost of entry is high, since they've already paid that cost, but that other people aren't being forced to pay the same cost of entry that they did.
That doesn't mean you have to defend it against people using a similar name in other industries. In US law at least, trademarks are specific to an industry, so unless Chanel's trademark application specified chocolate or candy of some sort, they would have no legal standing to go after a chocolate shop over the number 5. Is Australian or French law different? The logo might be a different story, but they agreed to change that.
"I have given instructions, considering the grave problems with public order and the development of this illegal activity, to the police prefecture in Paris to ban UberPop activities," said Cazeneuve last Thursday.
He can just unilaterally decide something is illegal? Serious question - is that how the French government works?
In the previous example of using WINE, Windows APIs are translated to work within a Linux environment, but the actual code of the API is not altered.
That's exactly backwards. WINE uses new code to allow programs to use the same Windows API. If it was a different API, my Windows program I'm trying to run in Linux couldn't work, because it was programmed to the Windows API.
For those unaware, an ABI is an Application Binary Interface, which is the compiler code needed to ensure the API of "Add(x,y)" translates correctly, regardless what API is written to use the procedure."
Why do you think that particular type of software is not copyrightable?
APIs are written code.
That's the part where you're disagreeing with everyone.
If there's still confusion, keep this in mind: if you can't write it, it's an ABI.
You just said an ABI is code - what do you mean, you can't write it?
I really do want to know why people believe APIs aren't covered under copyright, and so far, all I've seen is the confusion between API and ABI.
I still think you're the one who's confused. An API specifies a contract. It doesn't do anything. An API must then be implemented in code according to the specification. For example, Oracle's Java SDK is an implementation of the Java API. Google's Dalvik/Android system is another implementation of the Java API. Same API, different code. If you were correct that APIs are software, then that would be two different APIs, because it's two different pieces of software, but (ignoring anywhere Google might have deviated from the API) they both implement the same API.