techdescartes 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (484) comment rss

  • On the post: New Filings In Our Ongoing Lawsuit

    techdescartes ( profile ), 14 Mar, 2017 @ 01:02pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Plaintiffs can be successful appealing grants of Anti-SLAPP motions, albeit at a much lower rate than defendants (reversing anything on appeal has a much lower probability of success than having a decision affirmed). For example, in the Episcopal Church Cases, 198 P.3d 66, the district court granted an Anti-SLAPP motion. The California Court of Appeals reversed that decision and the California Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. What I am surprised about is that they managed to serve Leigh Beadon, a Canadian so far as I understand, properly under the Hague Convention. PACER doesn't show any affidavit of service for Beadon, just the defective one for Floor64.

  • On the post: Utah Legislators Want To Outlaw Posting Of People's Pictures And Names With The 'Intent To Harass'

    techdescartes ( profile ), 14 Mar, 2017 @ 12:22pm

    Re: Jurisdiction

    Utah can't tell me what I can and can't post to the internet, nor can it hold me responsible for violating its nutty laws just because someone in Utah was able to see my post.
    Setting aside the First Amendment issue, ever heard of extradition? It happens. All. The. Time.

  • On the post: Film Distributor Creates Torrent Site Clone That Gives Away Movie Tickets To Combat Piracy

    techdescartes ( profile ), 14 Mar, 2017 @ 06:46pm

    iRony

    The cloning of a torrent site feels a little shady... Agreed. People might get the idea that it's OK to copy someone else's stuff.

  • On the post: 'Thru Dropbox' Trademark Registrant's 'Bad Faith' Litigation Results In $2 Million Fee Award To Dropbox

    techdescartes ( profile ), 14 Mar, 2017 @ 07:39am

    Re: Re: So it was a lottery ticket…

    Dropbox paid its lawyers for a service. The lawyers provided the service, so Dropbox received what it paid for. Thus, it's not a "refund". Instead, after the case is over, it's like Dropbox is being given a coupon with a scratch-off covering the amount of a possible rebate. Dropbox scratched it off and it read "90%" (based on the order giving Dropbox its full requested fees less a 10% "haircut"). I guarantee that the person managing Dropbox's legal budget felt like he had been given a lottery ticket. (If you can't identify with paying legal fees, just imagine how you would feel after paying for a $20k surgery out of pocket and then being handed a 90% rebate.)

  • On the post: New York City Sues Verizon For Fiber Optic Bait And Switch

    techdescartes ( profile ), 14 Mar, 2017 @ 01:06pm

    Verizon?

    I'll pass.

  • On the post: Utah Legislators Want To Outlaw Posting Of People's Pictures And Names With The 'Intent To Harass'

    techdescartes ( profile ), 14 Mar, 2017 @ 08:41am

    Motion to Diagram Sentence

    ...if with intent to intimidate, abuse, threaten, harass, frighten, or disrupt the electronic communications of another...

    So disrupting the electronic communications of another, that's technically possible but likely not what they mean to prevent by this bill. But intimidating, abusing, threatening, harassing, or frightening the electronic communications of another? Who knew the Facebook page or Twitter account itself had feelings.

    Or did they mean:

    if with intent to disrupt the electronic communications of, intimidate, abuse, threaten, harass, or frighten another...

    Drafting bad legislation is hard work.

  • On the post: How To Improve Online Comments: Test Whether People Have Read The Article Before Allowing Them To Respond

    techdescartes ( profile ), 13 Mar, 2017 @ 10:21am

    Re: Re: A Message to TechDirt Supporters

    Ninja, I agree some of it has been fun. But most of it has been repetitive and redundant, saying the same thing over and over. For the record, I did write "any further interactions." Even Mike responded to him. Once.

  • On the post: 'Thru Dropbox' Trademark Registrant's 'Bad Faith' Litigation Results In $2 Million Fee Award To Dropbox

    techdescartes ( profile ), 13 Mar, 2017 @ 04:05pm

    So it was a lottery ticket…

    … just not for Thru.

  • On the post: Extra Digit Accidentally Typed By Officer Turns UK Man Into A Pedophile

    techdescartes ( profile ), 13 Mar, 2017 @ 12:13pm

    Can I have an extra pillow?

    Lang said that before he was able to officially lodge the complaint, an officer called him, questioning his need to complain and asking him whether his arrest had even had any impact upon his life.

    No, it was a 5-star arrest. Quite comfortable, actually. 9/10 says I'll recommend it to friends and family. I'll leave a review on your Yelp page.

  • On the post: Move Over, Series Of Tubes, The Internet Is Now A Bridge Over A Creek For A Dozen People?

    techdescartes ( profile ), 13 Mar, 2017 @ 11:42am

    Internet for the Rich

    "so it's really for a neighborhood, maybe a dozen people"

    A neighborhood of a dozen people that can build its own bridge over a creek just so they can talk is one rich neighborhood.

  • On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

    techdescartes ( profile ), 12 Mar, 2017 @ 06:19pm

    Maybe Next Time

    I agree. China should not be selling Netflix flags to protesters in Europe who want two-factor authentication for their cloud-connected toothpaste dispensers, especially without FCC approval of the trademark.

    Should've won insightful comment of the week.

  • On the post: How To Improve Online Comments: Test Whether People Have Read The Article Before Allowing Them To Respond

    techdescartes ( profile ), 12 Mar, 2017 @ 12:18pm

    A Message to TechDirt Supporters

    If you consider yourself a Friend of TechDirt and a supporter in its fight against Shiva Ayyadurai, you strongly should consider refraining from any further interactions with this anonymous commenter.

    First, he's not Shiva Ayyadurai (a) because he said so, (b) because Shiva attended U.S. schools from childhood and likely wouldn't affect the quirky writing style, and (c) if it was, it would have stopped long ago on the advice of his lawyer.

    Second, you're not going to explain anything to this commenter. We've already been through explaining that his obsessive commenting demonstrates how powerful TechDirt is in his mind (indeed, Ayyadurai thinks TechDirt is so influential that it allegedly cost him $15M), that the First Amendment does not give him a right to have his comments displayed, how SLAPP suits are contrary to the First Amendment, how flagging comments works on this site, and even referenced the obligatory XKCD comics. Your comment isn't going to break through to him, so just save it.

    Third, and probably most important, this anonymous commenter has threatened to use these comments in some legal action. Whether that's just bluster, or whether he follows through, it's additional headache that TechDirt can live without right now. Every dumb argument costs money to respond to. You know he has no ground to stand on (Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act precludes any liability to TechDirt for any comment made by me or anyone else), but that's never stopped a litigant from making a dumb argument. And it certainly doesn't stop TechDirt from having to pay for a lawyer to make that argument on our behalf.

    Ignore him and, eventually, he will go away.

  • On the post: How To Improve Online Comments: Test Whether People Have Read The Article Before Allowing Them To Respond

    techdescartes ( profile ), 10 Mar, 2017 @ 08:26pm

    Re: Huh

    I agree. China should not be selling Netflix flags to protesters in Europe who want two-factor authentication for their cloud-connected toothpaste dispensers, especially without FCC approval of the trademark.

  • On the post: China Busily Approving 'Trump' Trademarks With Stunning Speed

    techdescartes ( profile ), 10 Mar, 2017 @ 12:43pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Unfounded Leaps

    Trump has 77 trademark registrations in China, so I'm not sure where you conclude "he previously got denied at every turn." As I understand it, there is one application that had been denied previously. These 38 appear to have followed a standard track: 11 months, from April 2016 to March 2017, appears wholly ordinary, and nowhere close to "stunning speed". That's why Satterthwaite's quote is relevant. She sees nothing unusual. Painter disagrees. He sees an "accommodation". But neither of them see a violation of the Emoluments Clause. The closest I've come to finding someone who unequivocally says that the granting of the stalled construction trademark application is a violation of the Emoluments Clause is Nancy Pelosi (note that the story is from last month, so she couldn't have been referring to the 38 trademarks granted this week):

    “China’s decision to award President Trump with a new trademark allowing him to profit from the use of his name is a clear conflict of interest and deeply troubling,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) in a statement. “If this isn’t a violation of the Emoluments Clause, I don’t know what is.”
    Pelosi-knowing-it-when-she-sees-it isn't a reassuring legal standard.

  • On the post: China Busily Approving 'Trump' Trademarks With Stunning Speed

    techdescartes ( profile ), 10 Mar, 2017 @ 06:40am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Unfounded Leaps

    From the article, you quote Payne and Painter, neither of whom state this violates the Emoluments Clause, as discussed above in regards to Painter. You don't quote Janet Satterthwaite, who said:

    "Especially in China, you absolutely need to register defensively so that people do not exploit your name for commercial gain," she said. She that that while the marks are moving faster than in her own experience, "it does not look like China did anything extraordinary here."
    You claim that this violates the Emoluments Clause, but nobody in the article you cite makes that unequivocal statement. Have you found anyone who has?

  • On the post: Aussie Film Distributor That Pledged To End Movie Release Delays To Combat Piracy Delays Movies Anyway

    techdescartes ( profile ), 10 Mar, 2017 @ 01:10pm

    Come again?

    “Yes, we will lose a lot to piracy, but the other side of the coin is the film is available when the audience that goes to these sort of films wants to see it,” he said.

    So if the people who want to see the movie will wait to see it in six weeks, then the people who pirate the movie now don't want to see the movie?

  • On the post: China Busily Approving 'Trump' Trademarks With Stunning Speed

    techdescartes ( profile ), 09 Mar, 2017 @ 09:11pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Unfounded Leaps

    The context doesn't support that either. What you are trying to say is that, in the first half he said "emolument", but in the second half, instead of just saying "emolument" again, he said "accommodations" which means "advantage" or "gain" which means "emolument". Bear in mind that Painter has sued Trump over violations of the Emoluments Clause. It's not like he's afraid to say "emoluments" when he means "emoluments". The point is, Painter doesn't think this violates the Emoluments Clause. If he did, he would have been the first to tell you.

  • On the post: China Busily Approving 'Trump' Trademarks With Stunning Speed

    techdescartes ( profile ), 09 Mar, 2017 @ 08:05pm

    Re: Trademark Usage

    To register a trademark in the U.S., you either have to be using it in commerce or have a bona fide intent to use. In China, it is possible to register defensively, as stated in the article:

    Many companies register trademarks in China only to prevent others from using their name inappropriately. Janet Satterthwaite, a global trademark attorney and partner at Potomac Law Group in Washington, says nothing about Trump seeking and receiving trademarks in China raises any immediate red flags. "Especially in China, you absolutely need to register defensively so that people do not exploit your name for commercial gain," she said. She that that while the marks are moving faster than in her own experience, "it does not look like China did anything extraordinary here."
    In other words, Trump may have no intention to use any of these marks. There is no way to know from the filings themselves. Also, if you want to protect the English word and the Chinese characters that sound like the English word, you have to file registrations for both. Just ask Michael Jordan, who spent years gaining the rights to 乔丹 (Qiáodān, pronounced cheow-dahn). Here, at least some of the trademarks are "duplicates"—the English spelling and the Chinese-character equivalent. For example, Trump registered both Trump Tower and 川普大厦 (Chuān pǔ dàshà, , loosely translated "Chuanpu" Building). Thus, it's likely that there are 19 "trademarks"—one for the English word and one for the Chinese "equivalent". Not that this changes the substance of the argument, but I thought it might be helpful.

  • On the post: China Busily Approving 'Trump' Trademarks With Stunning Speed

    techdescartes ( profile ), 09 Mar, 2017 @ 04:58pm

    Re: Re: Unfounded Leaps

    Tim didn't write that it was not crazy to think that it "smells". He wrote that it was not crazy to think it "unconstitutional". For it to be unconstitutional, it has to violate some clause in the constitution. So, if not the Emoluments Clause, which one?

  • On the post: China Busily Approving 'Trump' Trademarks With Stunning Speed

    techdescartes ( profile ), 09 Mar, 2017 @ 04:48pm

    Re: Re: Unfounded Leaps

    Your deconstruction overlooks the fact that Painter switches from "emolument" in the first half of the sentence to "accommodation" in the second half. Painter doesn't say, "With so many trademarks being granted over such a short time period, the question arises as to whether there is an emolument." Indeed, the Emoluments Clause wouldn't support that argument:

    No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
    Emoluments are prohibited, whether they are provided quickly or repeatedly.

Next >>