Remind me again how leaks damage the government's ability to pursue investigations and prosecutions?
Isn't it obvious? They have to expend additional resources and time to hide the illegal activity now. If the leaks hadn't occurred, they would not have to expend those resources and time to hide the activity, leaving them with more resources available for illegal activity.
Trump's Whitehouse gave orders that nobody was supposed to communicate without them signing off on the content. This was, I suspect, primarily directed toward the EPA over climate change, but unless I'm mistaken the presidential order was to all executive branch offices, which meant PTO had it's hands tied, it couldn't update it's website or respond to questions without approval.
And I suspect the PTO was a very low priority for the WH, so thus it took them over a month to 'OK' telling the truth to everyone. *shrug*
Constitutionality was not raised at the lower court, only at the appeal, and therefore was barred. So the SCOTUS could not rule on the constitutionality, which is why this seems like a 'please raise this in future' request.
I'm not an expert on the SCOTUS, however, from what I do know, it's unusual for a Justice to comment like this unless it's something that the SCOTUS (more than just one Justice) is concerned about. It's also usually a 'please bring this up in the future so we can rule on it' request.
Honestly, if I were Jaegermeister, I'd probably file the paperwork as well. As much of a pain as it is, we've had too many stories lately of judges making idiotic rulings to ignore it. Remember, this is a German company, and Germany just made the Internet Illegal in a recent ruling on linking. (And don't get me started on the idiocy of API's having copyright that is the CAFC.) Given things like that, you can't really blame them for erring on the side of assumption of judicial stupidity.
Any website hosted in the EU will have to remove all links, to avoid this, and put up a disclaimer on why. Any international company with business offices in the EU will have to institute a special check on their websites, and remove all hyperlinks if the destination is an IP address in the EU.
Also, if I were an EU based ISP, I'd start looking into stripping out hyperlinks, as the next obvious Dallas target is the ISP's for sites outside the EU, after all, the ISP is delivering the content.
Once it hits a critical mass, the Internet will become unusable in the EU, and enough citizens (and more importantly to politicians, moneyed companies) will be ticked off that this will get fixed. But only when the economic impact hits home and everyone moves their websites and offices outside the EU, lowering the economy further first. Much as Spain's Google Taxes got trashed quickly.
T hat's a bit different than how he later paraphrased it. It's still protected speech, but it's a lot more dicey than he's playing now. Either way though, without something more to go on, the cops had no probable cause just based on tweets. They would have had to have some witnesses saying he said something else in person from the campus. Would not surprise me if they did though. I'm amazed at how 'eye witnesses' hear and see what they want, not what was actually said or done.
The most likely chain of events is he said something inflamatory, someone else heard what they thought was a threat, repeated it in more dramatic (and dangerous) words to the cops, the cops then decided that they didn't like his tone in tweets and went with it, despite the eye witness likely having mis-remembered what was said (I have two uncles who were cops, they said the only thing more unreliable than an eye witness was a con man).
...is something the big chain theatres don't understand.
They refuse to kick paying customers out for misbehaving. Phones out texting, talking, disrupting the movie, no problem. The only time they kick anyone out is if they take bad video of the movie on their phone.
There's a local chain in Texas called Alamo Drafthouse (Google it). They offer very comfortable seats, food and drink, alcahol, showings with no kids allowed so adults can enjoy the movie (showings with kids allowed for families), and will absolutely throw people out if they talk or text during the movie (and no refunds!).
At the very least, it does seem like Lenovo has some questions to answer -- and one hopes that the company will be more forthright and honest than it was back during the Superfish episode when it basically lied through its teeth until it couldn't lie any more.
Ha...Ha...Ha Ha... Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha...
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
Oh wow, I love the humor here on Techdirt... god I needed that laugh...
It is a case of trademark dilution. The college works with a lot of local businesses to license official school endorsed things, including t-shirts, artwork, and even food. The owner took the school emblems and other registered trademarks and used them.
I have no issue with her selling donuts, even hook'em horn shaped donuts, but you don't get to ride on the coat-tails by putting up school logos over them and pretending like you're officially associated with the school.
Can't we have some balance? We all get angry when Big Business acts in an unreasonable manner, and rightly so. We should also get angry when Small Business acts unreasonably too.
So... you are saying that it's perfectly fine to take the team emblem, put it up in your shop, over the donuts in question, and say 'Buy these donuts'? Implying that they are associated with the school?
I am far from an IP maximalist, but, there IS such a thing as brand. I would be just as against someone taking the Apple logo, slapping it on donuts, and saying 'Buy these Apple Company Donuts'. Or a USMC logo, or any other official trademark that they did not license.
I agree they shouldn't have gotten a trademark on the fingers, it's a thousand year old gesture.
However, the donut shop WAS using the team to sell donuts. They used the teams name, the phrase, and at one point, per the local news, even had team logos up on the donuts. This is not a local donut shop having some hand shaped donuts and getting sued for it, this is the shop using the local team's logos and name and trademarked phrases, and having a donut shaped hand.
The shop owner took down all the team logos and renamed the donuts. Honestly this seems less like bullying and more like 'Quit using our team logos and trademarked phrases to sell your donuts without going through the licensing to use our name'. I got no problem with the team not wanting her to use their name to sell donuts without getting a share.
The trademark on the hand symbol is stupid though.