Here's hoping that the TTAB finds in favor of Adidas on the other arguments.
So what are we saying here? That hopefully the government will come to its senses and grant a multi-billion dollar concern primacy over some uppity little church? Because Adidas is automatically more important?
I thought that was the whole problem with IP law: that the incumbent gorillas always get priority over the aspiring mice. It's sort of nice to see an incumbent mouse crushing an aspiring gorilla...gives me the feeling the law isn't all one-sided.
No, fake news doesn't change anyone's' mind. Perversely, it exists to keep anyone's mind from being changed.
Roughly, on any issue, we can divide the public according to a 10-20-40-20-10 rule; the old bell curve in action. The people creating the fake news are in the outside 10% segments. From that group, on one side:
10% are creating the fake news.
The adjacent 20% are prevented from shifting their beliefs forward by the horror of the opposite side of the curve generated by the fake news.
The middle 40% are kept indecisive by conflicting views, a little sickened by it all.
The opposite 20% are horrified by it, unsure how to proceed, but sure the opposition is a lost cause.
The last, opposite 10% are consumed by creating fake news to counter just the fake news. As opposed to more effective activities that might change minds.
The result, basically, is that the central 80% are frozen in cement, unable to find any justification to change their minds. This is like a war, where destruction of the enemy is not possible; leaving the only possible defense to be a stalemate.
And that is important when the beliefs of that outside 10% are categorically ugly.
No, not really. We want to live in an America where a 32-year-old can be cast as a 50-year old character; and the director doesn't prefer a 24-year old for the role because the 32-yaar-old is..."past her prime" I believe is the usual excuse.
We've already embraced the extortion business model. From copyright trolls to patent trolls to controlled obsolescence to data caps...all the most profitable new businesses get their revenue from arm-twisting "customers" to shell out for nothing.
The government just wants its shot at some of the same quick income.
They already leak or outright publish anything they find "expiditious, profitable, or ass-covering." Been doing that for years. As well as clamming up when publicity would not be "expiditious, profitable, or ass-covering."
They're completely self-serving in that respect.
So now ask yourself: what did they expect to gain with their back-handed endorsement of Trump? Because I guarantee: they expected to gain something.
Of course they don't want to list Tier III: it includes every organization that isn't in Tiers I & II.
Some might object I left the word "terrorist" out of that statement but I didn't. I figure that, on the theory everyone is a terrorist, Tier III is all the organizations they identified but don't have proof of terrorism activity yet. It's the suspect list...and that list includes everyone.
Darn straight they don't want to list it: 7+ billion names takes a lot of paper.
But what probably mattered more was they thought Steven Talley "could be convicted." That is far too often the only criteria for prosecution these days, while in re guilt or innocence, the prosecutor says, "Meh."