Mostly that MGA is a California company operating in the US. This case is filed in a US court. LVMH may try to retaliate in France, but that's another story for another day.
I'm kind of surprised they didn't throw in a contractual interference claim as well. If someone told one of my customers that the product they were buying from me could be considered infringing, and that both I and the customer could be "in trouble," that would likely make my customer think twice about buying from me.
Mike, you might be missing the greater point here. As you've pointed out before, Facebook's users are NOT its customers. And so long as its actual customers continue paying FB, it doesn't care what happens to its users. FB has a demonstrated history where screwing over its users leads to increased profit, not decreased. And that will not change until one of two things happens. Either its paying customers stand up and say, "This is not OK" (hah!), or its existing users start quitting the platform faster than new users join (which indirectly reduces the amount of revenue customers are willing to pay). Given that FB's been putting a lot of effort into international growth, it's pretty clear that they realize they need sheer numbers of uninformed users rather than "sophisticated" users who care about things like privacy.
Actually, I take that back. The EFF results show that when HTTPS is used, there's no throttling. So, they can't actually get into random HTTPS web streams. It seems then that the throttling for Binge On partners over HTTPS would require some way for T-Mobile to access the stream, or else a dedicated domain for the videos being served (at which point they could throttle everything from that domain).
Nope, check the EFF results. They disprove this theory. A video file, even when tagged as a non-video file, still got throttled. Not to mention, the EFF website is hardly a video website in the first place.
So, interesting question. From the T-mobile rep's quote:
Most YouTube traffic uses a protocol called HTTPS, which T-Mobile can detect, but some portions may be using a less-used protocol called UDP that the wireless company has more difficulty reading, according to Grant Castle, vice president of engineering at T-Mobile.
So how in the blue blazes does T-mobile detect video served over HTTPS? If their DPI gear can penetrate HTTPS, then either they're mucking about with certificates so they can decrypt the stream, or else HTTPS is leaking information about the content, which in turn raises questions about how secure it is at protecting that content from observers.
Say I use one of these drones to film myself on a daily jog in the park. Maybe I share the video with my friends, maybe I just keep it on my PC to review my performance. This is arguably legal under FAA rules. Some time later, I sell the video to a stock footage company. Pray tell how that makes my previously legal act suddenly illegal? How is the operation of the drone any different if I get paid after the fact of filming?
Does this mean that they defined what a zombie is? If so, it could rate as an actual government-endorsed definition of a zombie.
If you do that, then groups like the RIAA/MPAA will happily provide "educational" materials about BitTorrent, and patent troll^H^H^H^H^H innovators like Intellectual Ventures will happily explain to judges how their "on the Internet" patent is legally novel and perfectly valid.
The statement refers to the trademark as "Candy Crusher" (unless that was a transcription error). Wouldn't that be legally different from Candy Crush? As in, it wouldn't even cover their own game.
Interesting. Many years ago, I remember being taught that in statistics, "average" is a generic term that can refer to the mean, the median, or the mode. Depending on what you're analyzing, any of the three could be the "average" representation of your data. In common parlance, "average" almost always means the mean, though.
I have to wonder ... how would this have worked with companies that have multiple domain names? E.g., example.com, example.org, example.net, exxample.com, exampel.net, etc. With dozens of possible misspellings, and $1850 per domain ... that could have been brutal.
In the article about the declassified FISA briefs and orders from a couple of days ago, it was mentioned that there were 23 authorized people. Today Sen. Fennstein mentioned 22 people. In the interim, there was one notable person with access to the data who left the NSA. I wonder if that means anything, or if it's all coincidence? :)In the article about the declassified FISA briefs and orders from a couple of days ago, it was mentioned that there were 23 authorized people. Today Sen. Fennstein mentioned 22 people. In the interim, there was one notable person with access to the data who left the NSA. I wonder if that means anything, or if it's all coincidence? :)
A reasonable argument could be made that every time the appropriate .js files were accessed or downloaded, there was a separate case of infringement - roughly the same logic that the music industry used when prosecuting distributors. Given how frequently the site has been accessed in the last week or two (I forget when it launched), that would add up to a healthy chunk of change.
I'm not saying they should sue, mind you -- just that it's not a trivial case with a maximum payout of $750. As has been frequently said, in a lawsuit, the only winners would be the lawyers.
OK, this really gets my goat. President Obama just urged Congress to IGNORE their constituents and vote in favor of war. Think about that for a second. How can we trust an administration that explicitly tells another branch of government to ignore the American public?
I notice in the lead paragraph, two of the three examples of the Streisand effect have links. The third doesn't. Sloppy journalism. *VERY evil grin*
So when will we see all the senior staff at the NSA on trial for "aiding the enemy" or "treason"? Isn't this essentially the exact same accusation being made against Bradley Manning, that he shared classified data with non-Americans?