"Hate speech" is vague. If I say that Hillary Clinton is a criminal and belongs in jail or Donald Trump is an ignorant, blow hard and shouldn't hold any political office, does that qualify as "hate speech"? Some people think anything bad said about Obama is hate speech.
My cable company provides internet access via my off the shelf cable modem. Security is provided by me having to register the box's MAC address. I don't see how that is secure enough for internet access but not video. I someone spoofs my MAC, either both devices will have problems or the network's security software will detect the duplicate and shut down access to both devices. Either way, the clone device doesn't get access.
If Hazy Dreams is in violation, then so is Atari. Any penalty should go to Magnavox. Of course, I don't think anyone broke any rules. Several years ago, I wrote and released some software that included the word "remote" in the name. Does that mean that nobody can use the word "remote" in the name of any communications software? No. The word is too generic to copyright or trademark.
I keep seeing people calculating the speed as really a gigabit. I have hard wired gigabit in my house and I never see anywhere near that speed. There is protocol overhead, collisions, listening delays, PC architecture and all kinds of other issues the prevent Ethernet from reaching its theoretical speed limit. At best, you will see 50 to 60 percent throughput.
I should also point out that the name "land o'lakes" existed long before the dairy company. A quick search of the web shows hundreds of hits not related to the dairy company. Will the dairy company go after the Florida city next? How about the reality company or the high school?
Coca-cola is a made up name created by the company for one of its products. There is no prior history for the word. Coke has a better case than the Land o'Lakes dairy company but I think they would still loose. As long as there is no direct competition and no attempt to imply a relationship, there should be no confusion.
I don't expect it to survive an appeal since I don't think it will go that far. The dairy company had no case to begin with. As long as the fishing company's logo doesn't look like the dairy company's, there should be no confusion.
The same goes for your Coke example. As long ans the fishing company doesn't use a red and white script logo or try to sell their product in funny looking bottles, there should be no confusion.
Considering that Mar's gravity is little more than 1/3 of Earth's, I doubt that it will hold enough of an atmosphere. The atmospheric pressure on Mars is 1% of Earths. More air can be generated but can Mar hold enough to be breathable?
The "intention" word bothers me. Based on what most people are saying, if I am walking down the street and my camera falls out of my backpack and takes a fantastic picture, I am not the owner of that picture and I can't sell it. It is automatically in the public domain. The was no intent. There was no artistic input.
Based on you response, If I try to take a picture of a very quick event and I accidentally miss the event but get a good picture anyway, the picture is in the public domain. The picture was an accident and not the result of my creative input. If that is the case then there are a whole lot of copyrighted pictures that should be in the public domain.