We need to see Exhibit O before passing judgment on the agreement. But even without it, paragraph 42 of the Complaint reads decisively against Tobin:
The Agreement further provides that "Tobin understands that Trinity has not promised the public exhibition of the Sculpture, and that Trinity may loan the Sculpture to third parties as Trinity deems appropriate."
If the Agreement contains an integration clause (no party relied on promises outside the agreement), he is going to have a hard time making his case.
As for the "mutilation" claim, it should be dismissed. Tobin doesn't allege any facts plausibly suggesting that the Church intentionally damaged the sculpture, much less did so with an intent to alter its artistic impression. The sculpture broke while being moved, something entirely permissible under the Agreement.
And not to excuse the Church's alleged duplicitous conduct, but the Complaint reads like sour grapes on Tobin's part: artist loses high-profile display in Lower Manhattan, files lawsuit complaining about the terms of an agreement he freely entered into. Keep us posted.
Anyway, in the spirit of... "innovation," we've decided that we might as well do our own World IP Day writing contest, but (again, in the spirit of "innovation") let's make it an "anti" contest.
"Anti" contests are so much less effective than "pro" contests. If their contest decrements innovation by 1 ("Innovation -- Improving Lives"), why not call for essays that do the opposite, say "Innovation++"?
There is only one statement that Plaintiff tries to argue was unsupported by facts: the claim that Plaintiff “has built up his entire reputation” on his claim to have invented email.
So Ayyadurai wants to argue that he is famous not just for inventing email, so that it is defamatory to say he built his reputation around his claim that he invented email?
The guy has a registered trademark for DR. EMAIL. I pulled his substitute specimen of use submitted with the application, advertising his "Dr. Email™ Consulting Services". And guess what it says?
Shiva Ayyadurai. a scientist-technologist, entrepreneur, inventor and educator, invented [sic] of one of the world's first E-MAIL systems for which he received the first U.S. Copyright on E-MAIL. He founded EchoMail, Inc. in 1993 and is an expert in the field of E-Mail.
In other words, in 1996, Ayyadurai admitted that other email programs existed at the time he wrote his program—which is exactly what TechDirt has been reporting since day one.
P.S. If you want us to read all the materials, post Ayyadurai's 77-page response along with the reply. And the affidavit. Especially the affidavit.
BTW, Monster isn't proceeding on the basis of its "MONSTER" marks but on the basis of any entirely separate set of trademarks relating to the word "BEAST", as shown in the documents at the bottom of the post.
The only likelihood of confusion I see in this story is Tim's objection over "Monster Energy asserting that beast is too close to monster and oh my god why is this universe such a silly, silly place?" Might want to fix that.
"[M]usic is art, and art is important and rare. Important, rare things are valuable. Valuable things should be paid for. It's my opinion that music should not be free."
The problem is that she is conflating "music" with a "recording" of the music.
The former is rare: you have to have a person with talent use an instrument to create "music". That's rare and extremely valuable, as demonstrated by concert tickets selling for hundreds of dollars.
The latter is not rare: once a music recording is made, a million copies can be generated in moments. A recording is worth something, but it's nowhere near as valuable as the "music". And that value is dropping by the day.
Rather than bemoan the loss of value in "recordings," go make money with what is "rare and valuable": actually making music. Just ask Ed Sheeran.
No, it wasn't. The Tea Act remained in effect in the colonies. The reason the taxes were "lower" was because they effectively were "prepaid".
The Boston Tea Party was a protest against any taxes imposed by Parliament in the absence of colonial representation. The "lower" taxes (i.e., prepaid taxes) were a trick by the British to get the colonists to concede that Parliament had the authority to levy taxes in the first place.
Now, did tea smugglers and competitors of the British East India Company join in for their own competitive reasons? Yes. But without the primary cause of opposing all taxation by Parliament without representation, the Boston Tea Party never happens.
P.S. Wendy, keep in mind that Roger is from Canada. They use different history books.