orbitalinsertion’s Techdirt Profile


About orbitalinsertion

No one in particular, really. Just interested.

orbitalinsertion’s Comments comment rss

  • Jun 17th, 2016 @ 6:48am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The only serious monetary cost is storage. If you don't own the storage capacity, i don't know how you could be claiming to do the job at all in the first place.

    And no, a lot of operations would not need such heavy backup. Plus, you can rollover those older backups as newer ones are tested and re-use the storage.

  • Jun 17th, 2016 @ 6:33am

    (untitled comment)

    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".

  • Jun 15th, 2016 @ 7:37am

    (untitled comment)

    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.

  • Jun 12th, 2016 @ 9:39am

    (untitled comment)

    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.)

  • Jun 8th, 2016 @ 3:47pm

    Re: Notice and Staydown

    "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?

  • Jun 8th, 2016 @ 3:44pm

    Re: Pot Kettle Black Part Trois

    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.

  • Jun 8th, 2016 @ 3:29pm

    Re: Re:

    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.)

  • Jun 8th, 2016 @ 1:36pm

    (untitled comment)

    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?

  • Jun 8th, 2016 @ 1:19pm

    (untitled comment)

    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.

  • Jun 7th, 2016 @ 2:21pm

    (untitled comment)

    How does one not tell the difference between Dropbox and Tumblr?

  • Jun 7th, 2016 @ 1:09pm

    (untitled comment)

    So... the FBI should be pushing for everyone to use encryption then, yes? Can't have a terrorist plot when the terrorists only send each other gibberish, right?

  • Jun 6th, 2016 @ 11:44am


    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.

  • Jun 6th, 2016 @ 11:38am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Because we got baked earlier."

  • Jun 6th, 2016 @ 11:30am

    (untitled comment)

    It's hard to concentrate on your work when everyone is loudly laughing at you? ¯\_㋛_/¯

  • Jun 6th, 2016 @ 11:27am

    (untitled comment)

    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.

  • Jun 5th, 2016 @ 4:33am

    Re: Ah hypocrisy and double standards...

    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".

  • Jun 5th, 2016 @ 4:16am

    Re: TM LAW and Copy rights are a funny thing

    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.

  • Jun 2nd, 2016 @ 3:15am


    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.

  • Jun 2nd, 2016 @ 3:06am

    (untitled comment)

    But not everyone can live inside the processing system!

  • Jun 2nd, 2016 @ 3:04am

    Re: Re: Wrong question.

    We "gained" a huge nuclear arsenal and a whole new silo (no pun intended but there it is) in which to compete. Pretty sure the psychopathic end of the capitalism spectrum sees that as a win. And things seem to parallel rather well between extreme nationalism / war hawks and extreme corporatism / IP hawks. One cannot accuse them of making evidence-based decisions with respect to the evidence claimed to be in use, or which is theoretically supposed to be in use in their respective arenas.

    It is a weird analogy, for various values of "short-sighted". I expect the intent is to be point out the rules by which things are actually played, versus the putative rules which supposedly govern such things. Kind of like the frequent sort of argument that, e.g., calling out the NSA on grounds that it is ineffective to vacuum "intelligence" if the intent is to use it to find terrorists, when in fact they do it to control our own citizens. Sort of how i read it, anyway. But i could be both mistaken and also throwing more bad analogies on the pile.

More comments from orbitalinsertion >>