I read (just now!) that 6G disperses chemtrails. And now you have as well.
You are making the same error as the press. 5G is a set of technologies grouped into one upgrade. Using additional frequency bands is only one of the changes. It's those added high frequencies that will have short range (and the opportunity for a higher density of cells). The existing low frequency bands will behave as they always have, with the opportunity for higher communication rates with more sophisticated modulation. For most people, in most areas, nothing will change.
A forced refund is often not fair compensation.
A fundamental principle of economics is "excess value". You don't purchase something unless it delivers value significantly in excess of its price. If its price exactly matches it value, "frictional factors" such as risk, transaction cost, opportunity cost, etc mean that the rational choice is not to buy.
I'm sure that some will argue that most of the value in the book is in the first reading. Sure, I might be happy with a refund of that 2014 calendar. But I probably won't be happy with a forced refund for my 2014 daily journal, or a specific edition of a book that I referenced by page number in my research.
The warrant application was nominally written by Sgt. Joseph Obidi. Obidi now has a lawyer, who claims that the warrant was written at the direction of Obidi's "superiors on the command staff". https://www.rlslawyers.com/adachi-leak-case-police-executed-seven-ssearch-warrants-on-cops-journalist/ So Obidi should be nominally responsible, but did it at the direction of higher-ups. But they don't have the legal responsibility, so they aren't to blame either.
The presumption is that lawyers are, first and foremost, agents of the court. They advocate for their clients, but have a duty to do so within the law. That pretty much gives the judge a free pass when it comes to warrants. The warrant application should have included the target's occupation and a reference to the applicable law. But of course that would make it clear that they were requesting an illegal search, so it didn't happen. I personally believe that the judge screwed up in approving a clearly illegal search, but the system puts the blame on the person that signed the warrant application.
I doubt that he really didn't know about existing email system. This was at a university computing center. If he didn't know about them originally, he would quickly have been told. Computing was a bit of a niche field in 1979, but that plays two ways: it was easy to follow everything going on. And he wouldn't have only learned about the concept there. CompuServe was widely known, and pre-deployment Minitel was getting lots of stories in the general press. He wouldn't have gotten technical details from those sources, but there would be enough to know where to start reading.
What's the "conversion" rate for people watching a horrible quality pirated cam version before opening weekend? Probably 99% for an excellent movie. They will watch the pirated version to see that it's what that it's worth it, and then stand in line at the theater with their friends.
The first question that leapt to mind:
What declarations did he make in the trademark application?
https://www.uspto.gov/trademark/laws-regulations/verified-statement
What is the penalty for swearing to information that he knew to be false? (It looks like perjury...)
Ambulance duty? That would last until the first time it needed maintenance. That is when they would figure out that it's too expensive to use. Or perhaps it would be sidelined the first time the fuel tank needs to be filled, after getting 3.5 MPG ("somewhat less in city traffic").
Salt Marsh was the mastermind of the whole scheme! I do have to wonder what Steele did to get downgraded to mere "muscle". It appeared that he was an equal partner with Paul. Duffy was the only criminal I felt sorry for, slightly. He was straight out of a Grisham novel. A down-on-his-luck drunk ambulance chaser, he was recruited as the front man for the Prenda part of the scheme. But all of the initial millions went to Steele and Hansmeier, and the scheme fell apart just as Duffy was to get his share.
The whole point of their approach is that Google will ignore a trademark claim, but there is apparently a fair chance that they will rubber-stamp a copyright claim.
Is the slogan for a "good" or a "service"? If not, what is the trademark for? Because it certainly can't be for any use of the phrase, anytime, anywhere.
I have to agree -- what would you have to do to get timely disciplinary action?
Shouldn't the standards be lower (higher?) than an actual criminal conviction? Shouldn't the desire to protect the public result in a speedier process than a criminal conviction? He should have been suspended years before the suspension occurred, and disbarred long before now.
I'm guessing that Facebook can push the refund back onto the supplier, the same as they would do if a stolen credit card had been used.
Presumably Facebook doesn't remit the payments to the game supplier until well after the refund liability has passed, and even then they reserve the right to debit any refund from future payments. And since Facebook has the power in the relationship, they probably charge the supplier for the cost of refunding.
I was well aware of Pinkerton's historical reputation for violence and thuggish behavior.
I didn't know that the company still existed, apparently largely as a brand name. I would have thought that name would have been abandoned as irretrievably tainted.
I predict that the investigation will find that Verizon and one other telecom company paid a semi-respectable lobbying firm which subcontracted out to a "grass roots" firm that paid the overseas shop that did the bad deed.
At every level they were careful to retain deniability. No one at Verizon will have direct knowledge that astroturfing was done, they just paid the generic bills as-submitted. The lobbying firm will claim that they didn't know the grass-roots firm was doing anything but getting legitimate signatures. The grass-roots firm will claim that they weren't doing anything illegal on U.S. soil, that it was all the overseas shop.
I recall a few decades ago that the fascist stereotype (e.g. Nazi, Soviet) was the inspector on the train say "Papers please". Now we have the same thing with the TSA. We seem oblivious that freedom to travel without identifying ourselves to the government was one of the key ways we distinguished ourselves from totalitarian regimes.
The Chinese "citizen scores" seem similarly oppressive, but the ACLU points out that we are doing even worse under a different name.
I don't believe that it was to promote her "personal brand".
I think that it was a cynical corporate move to damage everyone in the industry with ambulance-chasing lawsuits, knowing that they would be one of the few that could survive.
I'm sure that this filing didn't come out of the blue. Gibson's lawyers were almost certainly forewarned by Dean's lawyers.
With this filing we now get a clue about Gibson's sudden change: they didn't have a change of perspective, they cynically put out stories to the press to get out in front of the upcoming bad PR. This filing, with its extensive set of 'V' and 'Z' guitars from other makers over several decades, makes it clear that Gibson has a weak case with grossly exaggerated claims.