I seem to recall that his nomination for the Supreme Court has been under a bit of a stall. It sure would be nice if he spent some of his political capital on that other branch of the government nobody seems to care about. Sadly, he is making it quite clear where his priorities are.
According to this definition then, Phyllis Shlafly's long time use of her name in her "The Phyllis Schlafly Report" would make it possible for her to trademark the name even as they refuse to mention the full meaning of the statute.
What statute is she referring to in the last quote? Is there really a statute that prohibits trademarks on surnames? If so, the folks at Anheuser-Busch (or Coors, or Chevrolet, or Ford, or ....) may be in for a surprise. I do not recall hearing about this before, so I am genuinely curious if such a standard exists on trademarks and surnames. It is hard to imagine that Phyllis Schlafly would just make something up out of thin air.
I am beginning to think that the rumours that Mr. Ellison eats the hearts of those who fail him may be true. It is the only explanation that makes sense with respect to this sort of desperation. Maybe we should watch with quiet dignity and respect. And maybe, perhaps yell a hearty "dead men walking" when the Oracle legal team enters the court room?
The leader of the biggest, terrorist state in history, Julius Caesar, used encryption. In fact, the encryption technique he used is named for him. Although, if you disagree that Rome was a terror state and one of the good guys then you might want to argue that statistics should be outlawed because from that point of view the terrorists use basic frequency statistics as a way to defeat the Caesar Cypher.
I had to re-read that phrase "anti-encryption supporters" 3 or 4 times. It seems like a double regressive statement to be a supporter of going backwards.
As far as the effort itself, these folks are going to be quite shocked to find out that it is possible to create and install android apps on your own. When they find out it is possible to employ encryption without being blessed by the google they are likely going to blow a hemorrhoid. By their reasoning, that is going to mean it is time to make android illegal because terrorists use it.
Then again terrorists use toilets. We should get rid of those things too. Nothing good ever came out of a toilet.
Law enforcement officers, on the other hand, are often treated as unimpeachably credible, even when their recollections of events are less than accurate
The one time that I served a jury they filled the courtroom beyond capacity and people were standing. The judge asked a couple questions at the start to start seeing who could be dismissed. After each question a couple people left. When he said that police officers would testify and said if anybody has a problem believing an officer's testimony they should not be on the jury, almost half of the people in the room stood up and left. In retrospect I think the judge may have had that statement a bit reversed.
What makes this interesting is that recently I have begun to rethink my use of techdirt as a way to quench my thirst for naughty pictures. I may be a bit premature in reconsidering the way I use techdirty.
(Also, I hope my choice of words here does not get you into any more trouble. I tried as best I could to make this the least saucy post possible.)
So, the state got stung by someone being overly aggressive with a copyright club, and the response is that they need more copyright clubs rather than less. Is there any question about bad things whose answer is not to increase the amount of bad things? Part of me wonders how the human race managed to take over the world, but this kind of reasoning is probably why. That whole "one way trip to Mars" thing is looking better every day. With my luck, once I got there someone would have copyrighted potato DNA and trade marked the word "air."
So in the same way I’d argue we legalize drugs, why not have a careful, legal pathway to break into a phone?
The logic seems to be that drugs are now illegal, but their use only impacts the person taking them. If we can change the law so that drugs are now legal and are about personal responsibility we can take enough drugs that we no longer care. About anything. Including logic or other people.
If I were a stock holder in Netflix I would not be too pleased to hear this dialog. It sounds like an explicit acknowledgement, that Netflix does not have a firm understanding of its customers. On the other hand, as a Netflix subscriber I am actually quite thrilled that Netflix does not have a complete understanding of who I am other than my viewing choices. I certainly wish google had the same outlook on its customers.
If ESPN is forced to disclose financial entanglements between what it broadcasts and the sports it covers then there would not be much time left for sports. ESPN has provided some good reporting, but it falls far short of the other broadcasting efforts. The success of ESPN is closely entwined with the sports it covers. They have a vested interest in making sports and players look good.