James Burkhardt’s Techdirt Profile


About James Burkhardt

James Burkhardt’s Comments comment rss

  • Aug 23rd, 2017 @ 8:15am

    (untitled comment)

    I think it is important in this discussion to note the actual standard for gendercide: That the name is SO generic, you have to use it to be competitive. Its the flip side of the customer protection goal of trademark, That we will revoke a trademark if its presence is so dominant the trademark itself is harming the consumer market. I was unaware until recently that aspirin was a trademark at one time, you don't call that drug anything else. Trying to sell aspirin without calling it aspirin is a fools game. You need the name aspirin to sell your product.

    Google, while synonymous with search, and used as a generic term for searching the web, is not generic like Aspirin is. IF I talk about Bing, you know what that is. If I talk about a search engine, you know what that is. There are many places where using google to replace for search or search engine doesn't make any sense. "What site do you google with" is one of them. "I googled it on Yahoo" is another. Google is not so generic you have to use google to make yourself understood or compete in the search space. As such, there is no consumer benefit to Genericide of the google trademark.

  • Aug 23rd, 2017 @ 8:05am

    Re: Alphabet is the "Mother" Brand (as )

    Yes, however, under the google brand, several products do exist - Google Drive, Google Docs/Sheets, Google Maps, ect.

  • Aug 15th, 2017 @ 10:33am

    (untitled comment)

    I Agree we shouldn't attack the ACLU for supporting the right to assemble. However, a few notes i got from an interview i listened to with the governor of virginia-

    1) the state wasn't trying to restrict their speech, it was trying to establish ground rules that served specific, documented concerns.

    2) the first was location. The downtown location of the rally was considered dangerous. there were concerns about the ability to disperse unruly crowds and what would happen if unruly crowds were dispersed, which were, in hindsight completely justified. That said, ignoring that...

    3) The state looked to restrict the carrying of poles by protesters for fear they would be used as weapons....which were again totally justified when they were.

    I'm not exactly sure how a bunch of whites brandishing guns and torches directly calling for the deaths of blacks and jews was a peaceful protest and not an incitement to violence, but it might have been less of a powder keg in a more open space like the park the state wanted the rally moved to and the protestors lacked the weapons and symbols of violence they carried.

  • Aug 10th, 2017 @ 8:06pm

    Re: Re: West Virginia =/= New York (as )

    So diversity doesn't exist in Delaware. It still exists in West Virginia.

  • Aug 10th, 2017 @ 3:46pm

    West Virginia =/= New York (as )

    Am I missing something? How does a case filed in West Virgina, about a defendant in New York, not automatically have diversity?

  • Aug 9th, 2017 @ 2:18pm

    Response to: White man are protected by Anonymous Coward on Aug 9th,2017 @ 12:47pm (as )

    Interesting standpoint, that misses the context. Facebook prioritized (and may still do) protecting White males over any other gender of ethnic group. If there was a question who was wrong, the white guy was right. Always. That's the problem. They chose a discriminatory policy that prioritized a White males in an effort to speed up the process. Not that white ben where protected. That protecting white males was prioritized above protecting other groups.

  • Jul 6th, 2017 @ 6:37am

    Re: (as )

    Actually, Patent law is much more applicable than copyright to software. Math cannot be copywritten, and in fact aside from naming conventions there is not any 'creative' output within software. The problem is not that software patents exist. A novel algorithm which radically improves computation time over existing methods could, conceivably, be an excellent patentable subject.

    The problem is the way patents are now written. They are written in broad strokes, rather than focusing on the actual process by which the 'invention' preforms its function, allowing the patent recipient to lock down the entire market, and not allowing other methods to come to market. Polaroid got a patent on their method for creating instant photos, and successfully managed to shut down a competitor who used a completely different process due to broad patent language.

    Don't blame a symptom for the disease that caused it. Blame the disease.

  • Jun 23rd, 2017 @ 4:03pm

    (untitled comment)

    Actually, I cn understand this. Dr. Pepper is actually big into soda-flavored Branded candy. Dr Pepper and Crush licorice are great, and I know there are other types of candy branded with the Dr. Pepper marks.

    I could easily see a Crush branded candy being confused as to wether it was the soda Crush or the "candy" Crush.

    Not likely in the store, as visual branding could distinguish the two. No, I'm talking in audio and text descriptions, that do not necessarily include the visual branding.

    But then again, Timothy might not have the combination of sweet tooth and dollar store/amazon shopping habits I have.

  • May 19th, 2017 @ 10:17am

    Re: We have too much memory installed! (as )

    Well, to be clear, the entire reason the court was willing to agree this wasn't censorship is that the actual content, the actual articles or websites with the informtion are NOT removed. The plaintiffs argued that Google was acting similarly to a "data repository" (like the ones maintained by private companies that provide the background checks used by mots priate businesses). As such, Google was required to 'delist' information that was no longer 'relevant'. Looking at it from this perspective, if you rule that google is in fact a 'data repository', then the RTBF rule makes sense. You don't remove the factual data, you just stop including a reference to it in the file, so there is no censorship.

    That's the only reason this ruling got through - it didn't get rid of the underlying data.

    Its till a bad ruling, and one that, if this lawsuit goes through, will likely lead to the death of the internet in any recognizable modern form.

  • Apr 15th, 2017 @ 7:52pm

    Re: (as James P Burkhardt)

    Probably because primarily The lawsuit makes a legal claim, defemation, and then fails to state any facts which support that claim. Page 9 of the Techdirt response is dedicated to pointing out even if they do not apply the CA anti-SLAPP law, the suit is deficient of any basis for the legal claim, which is the standard necessary to dismiss the case. This is excatly what pre-trial motions are for. Techdirt is effectively saying "I agree with all the plaintiffs facts, but they do not provide basis for the legal claim." or to be more simple "Yeah. WHats your Point?" These motions might not work against cases with real legal questions, but Techdirt and popehat are filled with similar lawsuits to this one that were in fact dismissed because the lawsuit was deficient. To rule that the case should move forward the judge has to say that there is sufficent evidence in THe plantiffs filing to suggest the likelood of prevailing at trial. I dont see any evidence to that effect, nor does techdirt.

  • Apr 4th, 2017 @ 2:56pm

    Re: (as James Paul Burkhardt)

    I question your premise. The Library of congress is not a "failed" instiution. And, in fact, the current Librarian of Congress is a good way to fix the private industry revolving door. By hiring an actual Librarian with proven history modernizing Libraries, the stage has been set for a more functional Library of Congress. And, very quickly, the librarian, understanding the needs of the copyright office, found the industry insider unsuitable to the task.

    Retaining the copyright office as an arm of the Library of congress makes sense. The 'fix' is to put actual librarians in charge of the library, like we put actual judges on the supreme court. This would allow the Librarian of congress to choose heads of the copyright office that maximize the synergies of the two departments, and improve the whole process.

  • Nov 22nd, 2016 @ 12:16pm

    Re: Re:

    Anti-Trust is not anti regulatory control. Its a huge government power move, in which companies abusing a monopolistic position are forced by the government into not abusing their position. Historically, this has meant breaking up large monolithic corporations into smaller organizations that in theory compete, allowing free market principles to restore a healthy market that is beneficial to consumers. The federal government has refused to address market distortions caused by territorial monopolies using the Sherman act, likely because of the concerns of Wall Street. So the second approach to Anti-Trust is regulation. Establish rules of engagement that are designed to prevent consumer harm. ignoring for now the question of whether established rules achieve their goal, one of the goals of regulation is Anti-Trust. Regulation of the early broadcast industry meant different channels had different owners. Deregulation lead directly to the current market where disputes with a single network leads to the loss of a large group of channels, sometimes numbering in the hundreds. This, combined with a lack of Anti-trust in the broadcast market, is the direct cause of skyrocketing cable fees.

    TL; DR: regulation is a form of anti-trust.

  • Nov 17th, 2016 @ 12:26pm

    (untitled comment)

    And now we see why politicians lied to get brexit off the ground. They dont want those pesky EU privacy laws.

  • Nov 8th, 2016 @ 9:19am


    Well, I think the problem is that while you've correctly identified that Demand outstrips Supply, you frame the solution in terms of shifting the damnd curve. The real solution, as indetified in the article, is to adjust they Supply curve. Tour schedules are designed to maximise demand and limit supply via 'One Night Only' scheduling, with no space for additional shows. This isnt entirely the band/promoter's fault, as venues dont want to keep themselves open for potential shows. But expanding the supply is the best of both worlds - you get to tap into the large demand pools, but by opening up concerts you lower the benefit of scalpers. The real problems are that because of the way tickets are sold, most of them dont get sold to the general public. by opeing up more concerts in high demand areas, you potentially make more tickets availible to the general public. It might not work for everything, but scalper bots are actualy only a symptom of the supply problem.

  • Oct 19th, 2016 @ 10:27pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: That is awesomely funny...and sad

    exactly, i read the email. i responded with the assertionn that the evidence, the email, does not back the conclusions. In all cases the videos author is taking statements out of context, or making background assumptions about the context of the emails that we don't know. you then told me to read the emails, which i already stated i did. you are asking me to find the smoking gun in thousands of emails, when every example of a smoking gun you come up with fails to say what you want it to say!

  • Oct 19th, 2016 @ 1:17pm

    Re: That is awesomely funny...and sad

    All responces below based on the sources provided for the first Youtube video here: http://louderwithcrowder.com/top-10-wikileaks/

    1) Hilary wants Open Borders.

    So does Donald Trump. At least he did in 2013. He said it was critical. And if fact, variations on the statements made by Hilary I think would be good things.

    2)The Iran deal was awful and even Democrats know it.

    That email was clearly lacking in context, And could actually mean many things, perhaps referencing a private conversation where one of the individuals 'called' that response. We don't actually know what was said here as the "Yup" comment from Podesta does not answer any query from the original email.

    3)Bernie Sanders was bribed into supporting Hillary. But he did it for the people! Aaand his lakefront vacation home.

    The wording in the email does not suggest an actual exchange of cash (a point the source of this analysis now admits). In fact it discusses a solid standard political tactic. The Republicans sign a pledge to support the nominee, this is no different. The Clinton campaign just suggested they produce goodwill between candidates and not produce ads that undermine the eventual nominee. Politicians working together? What scandal!

    4) The DNC created fake, sexist ads under the alias of Trump organizations.

    i see no evidence they were posted. And, these posts are clear hyperbole. I don't see how this is more serious then Republicans creating propeganda sites masquerading as local news, or creating fake websites from democratic candidates, or creating fake democratic fundraising sites to steal Democrats money.

    5) Hillary believed Obama committed voter fraud

    -Both wrong and misleading. Some people of unknown position and authority in Colorado (sound like they might just be private citizens) thought that Obama was bringing ineligible voters to Caucuses in 2008.

    6)Clinton staffers wished the San Bernardino shooter was white.

    Misleading. John Podesta made that claim. No email was released that agreed with him. I am unsure what this has to do with "their tactics".

    7)The Clinton campaign is HUGE on media collusion.

    Not sure how this email proves media collusion. It was a mass email from someone in the Sanders team about a Sanders Twitterstorm sent to political consultant Donna Brazile, who forwarded it to the Clinton campaign. I see no signs of a media organization colluding with Clinton.

    8) Speaking of media collusion, Ezra Klein is big on helping to make that happen.

    Ezra Klein was mentioned as someone how would hold a journalist 'accountable'. From context, that would appear to mean accountable for discussing excerpts from emails devoid of context and claiming a different meaning than what was intended. Kinda like this entire chain of accusations.

    9)Hillary knowingly, criminally deleted her emails.

    The emails in this case neither reveal anything new, nor prove Clinton knew anything more then she claimed. The staffers claim no conversations with Clinton about the subject, just reservations about the information everyone at that point had.

    10)Obama and Hillary communicated via private email, and it was kept hidden.

    The only thing in the wikileaks emails that they cite is a short email. It asked if they should withhold emails to from [reasonably assumed] Clinton to Obama. And ponder if Executive Privilege should be declared. Since everyone communicated with Clinton via private email, I don't know why it would be surprising the President did. there is no evidence that Obama was using an unknown private email, nor was there evidence that his copies of the emails aren't archived on a government server. In fact we don't even have a response, so we don't know that Clinton copies of these emails were even withheld.

    Honestly, I'm not even gonna get into the second Video. If you need to blatantly misattribute and sensationalize the information to 'prove' misconduct, you are on a witch hunt.

    As a note, the democratic party is not my party. I'm Pirate party. i just don't like partisan mudslinging.

  • Oct 19th, 2016 @ 12:08pm


    Right. to protect dems. which is why they hired the guy legally barred from saying anything bad about trump, and involved him in trump coverage.

  • Oct 19th, 2016 @ 7:55am

    Re: Re: Re:


  • Oct 14th, 2016 @ 12:59pm


    your kinda missing the point. we have a poll which seems to significantly disagree with other polls from both sides of the aisle. and we find that the reason of the poll is that, an isolated individual's opinion is being used to establish the opinion of an entire specifc voting block. voting blocks are normally not that specific, because the sample size is normally too small to draw accurate conclusions. This single individual changed polling numbers by 4-5% in favor of trump, and no single opinion should shift a scientifically run poll that much. every other poll suggests that he is not representive of his demographic.

    he is not being singled out because he votes for trump. The poll is being singled out for overweighting his opinion such that the poll result drastically changes when he isn't included. The LA poll suggests that there has been a massive shift in opinion towards Clinton, when in fact the biggest change is a single trump supporter not answering his phone.

    Trump supporters should be angry about this. This past week has been full of stories about trump's falling poll numbers. And that meta analysis comes to a far more dire conclusion because of this poll.

  • Oct 13th, 2016 @ 1:13pm

    Re: Re: Re: And THAT is what YOU are voting for!!!

    Except Stein and Johnson are terrible at most technology issues. Johnson's policy is basically, If we just stop all government regulation in the broadband space, including all funding to encourage spending on low value areas, somehow the monopolistic practices of the last decade will just fade away and we will just be awash in a broadband utopia. In fact, that sums up gary Johnson's entire plan.

    And Jill stein has almost zero stated policy positions surrounding technology.

    I useed to support Jill Stein, but as ive looked into policy platforms, I have found her policies on many issues that matter to me to be problematic. Shes got no directives on copyrights or patents, her website lists no position on the encryption debate, she recommends sweeping military cuts, her stance on common core is populist-it addresses the perception of why the standards are wrong rather then the reality, wants to enact scare labels on our food, and overall, makes broad, simple statements about complex goals. most of her proposals are about as specific as Trump.

    Her website has a disturbing tendancy to repeat itself, like it felt the need to pad out her policies.

    If I vote purely on surveilance, Clinton is not a good choice. But There are many other issues, and taken as a whole Clinton provides me with a better policy platform the either Jill Stein or Gary Johnson. Go ahead and be a single issue voter if you wish, but I see a lot of issues that need handling.

More comments from James Burkhardt >>