techdescartes 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (484) comment rss

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

    techdescartes ( profile ), 09 Mar, 2017 @ 03:46pm

    Unfounded Leaps

    Tim, you quote Richard Painter as saying this isn't a violation of the emoluments clause:

    "A routine trademark, patent or copyright from a foreign government is likely not an unconstitutional emolument, but with so many trademarks being granted over such a short time period, the question arises as to whether there is an accommodation in at least some of them," he said.

    It would seem that you agree with Painter, since you quote him and don't state otherwise. But you then conclude, "Whatever your leanings, the question about whether this violates the Constitution certainly can't be called crazy any longer."

    If China granting the trademarks doesn't violate the emoluments clause, what clause are you saying it violates?

  • On the post: NSA Tries To Stonewall Jason Leopold's Requests Because He's A 'FOIA Terrorist' Who's Paid To 'Deluge Agencies' With Requests

    techdescartes ( profile ), 09 Mar, 2017 @ 08:13am

    Not Secure Agency?

    Leopold's first request is telling:

    ...disclosure from the National Security Agency Office of Inspector General a copy of the concluding document report of investigation, final report, closing memo, referral letter) concerning investigations closed in calendar year [sic] 2013 and 2014 concerning misconduct, actual or alleged.

    The motion then states: "By email on September 26, 2014, plaintiff responded that he was willing to narrow his request to only investigations with findings of misconduct," to which the NSA found "approximately 8,488 pages of potentially responsive documents." The motion talks about all of the steps they have to go through, including redacting classified information. The requested relief is to have until September 2017 even to begin producing and then only to produce 400 pages per month. So, processing of this request wouldn't even finish until July 2019, not to mention the other requests.

    If I were the judge, I would demand to know from the NSA:

    • How many "documents" are at issue, not the meaningless number of "pages" (a badly formatted Excel document can run hundreds of "pages" but it is just one document).
    • How many "investigations" had findings of misconduct?
    • How many of those investigations actually involved "classified" information?

    If this is all time-card fraud, vacation fraud, and the like, there's nothing classified. Turn it over now. But if the reason the NSA needs all this time is for its double-layer-classified-information-redaction sausage making, then that means there was misconduct that involved classified information.

    So, NSA, pick your poison: cough up the documents because it's no big deal or ask for time because you are admitting that your organization has a problem handling classified information.

  • On the post: First Amendment Lawyer Apparently Surprised That The First Amendment Covers Everyone

    techdescartes ( profile ), 08 Mar, 2017 @ 11:18am

    Re: @ "whittling away free speech rights with stronger copyright"

    Under that standard, you aren't allowed to make this comment. It's been made before.

  • On the post: CIA Leaks Unsurprisingly Show The Internet Of Broken Things Is A Spy's Best Friend

    techdescartes ( profile ), 08 Mar, 2017 @ 02:03pm

    451°F

    One day parents will tell their kids, "Go play outside. You're being watched by too much TV."

  • On the post: First Amendment Lawyer Apparently Surprised That The First Amendment Covers Everyone

    techdescartes ( profile ), 08 Mar, 2017 @ 11:15am

    History #Fail

    The law says that anyone could bring a SLAPP motion to get rid of a lawsuit if they could show that they were being sued for exercising their right to speak at government hearings or exercising their right to free speech “in connection with an issue of public interest.”

    Yes, that was true in 1992 when California first passed the SLAPP statute.

    But in recent years the courts have interpreted the “public interest” requirement so broadly that it now applies to any lawsuit that targets speech about “any issue in which the public is interested,” according to a California appellate court.

    Seager declined to share which case, so I decided to find it myself: Nygard, Inc. v. Uusi-Kerttula, 159 Cal. App. 4th 1027, 1039, 72 Cal. Rptr. 3d 210, 218 (2008).

    The Nygard court noted that the legislature amended the statute in 1997, adding a directive to construe the statute broadly “to address recent court cases that have too narrowly construed California's anti-SLAPP suit statute.” (citing Assem. Com. on Judiciary, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 1296 (1997–1998 Reg. Sess.) for July 2, 1997, hg., p. 2.)).

    The bottom line: Courts weren't construing the SLAPP statute broadly enough, so the legislature told them to broaden the interpretation. The Nygard court did:

    The Legislature expressly rejected this limited view of the anti-SLAPP statute when it amended the statute in 1997 and, thus, we will not adopt it here.

    Good for them. If Seager wants to change the law, she is free to use her right to petition. She is not free to re-write history.

  • On the post: Wolfgang Puck Battles Elon Musk's Brother Over Trademark Rights For 'The Kitchen' In Restaurant Industry

    techdescartes ( profile ), 07 Mar, 2017 @ 08:39pm

    Re: Re: Re: USPTO: "I didn't do it!"

    Try clicking it again. You'll get what you've got coming. Even in Canada.

  • On the post: Wolfgang Puck Battles Elon Musk's Brother Over Trademark Rights For 'The Kitchen' In Restaurant Industry

    techdescartes ( profile ), 07 Mar, 2017 @ 08:16pm

    Re: Re: USPTO: "I didn't do it!"

    If you click that little red flag next to your comment, you'll get your just desserts.

  • On the post: Wolfgang Puck Battles Elon Musk's Brother Over Trademark Rights For 'The Kitchen' In Restaurant Industry

    techdescartes ( profile ), 07 Mar, 2017 @ 07:23pm

    USPTO: "I didn't do it!"

    When the USPTO instead allows for laughably broad terms or words to be trademarked, it steals from trademark proponents the argument of utility.

    The USPTO isn't at fault here. In fact, TKC applied to register THE KITCHEN as a trademark for restaurant services and the Examining Attorney refused. TKC appealed and the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board affirmed the refusal. Don't blame the USPTO. This time.

    During that proceeding, TKC argued that there was no likelihood of confusion between THE KITCHEN and DA KITCHEN:

    Applicant respectfully argues that consumer confusion is unlikely because: (1) the Cited Mark is weak and entitled to minimal protection due to a crowded field of KITCHEN-formative marks used in connection with restaurant services; and (2) while the marks share the term “kitchen,” the inclusion of “da” in the Cited Mark gives it a different overall commercial impression from Applicant’s Mark, and consumers – who are already accustomed to encountering and distinguishing between many KITCHEN-formative marks – will likewise be able to distinguish between THE KITCHEN and DA KITCHEN.

    Sounds exactly like Wolfgang Puck's argument. Ouch.

  • On the post: Prenda's John Steele Pleads Guilty, Admits To Basically Everything

    techdescartes ( profile ), 07 Mar, 2017 @ 10:25am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A reply for a great big phony.

    Well, you certainly can have all of your comments back.

  • On the post: ESPN On-Air Talent About To Care About The Cord-Cutters The Execs Aren't Concerned About

    techdescartes ( profile ), 07 Mar, 2017 @ 03:04pm

    Pun-ishment

    Bristol, Connect-n-cut

  • On the post: Florida City Sends Bogus Trademark C&D To Blogger Because It Doesn't Like Its Logo Parodied

    techdescartes ( profile ), 06 Mar, 2017 @ 10:31am

    Re: Are you parodying the city's name?

    Um, the City's name already is a parody. According to the article, it's the reverse of "Caramat", a line of car washes owned by the founder of the City. Of course, that's not on the City's history page.

  • On the post: Utah Judge Won't Let The Constitution Get In The Way Of A Little Prior Restraint

    techdescartes ( profile ), 06 Mar, 2017 @ 12:08pm

    When this is the first line of your publicly-filed complaint...

    Purple has recently become the target of a concerted, widespread, and public online smear campaign, which threatens to go viral if it has not already...

    ...you might want to re-think your strategy.

  • On the post: Florida City Sends Bogus Trademark C&D To Blogger Because It Doesn't Like Its Logo Parodied

    techdescartes ( profile ), 06 Mar, 2017 @ 10:29am

    No There There

    To sound official, Ms. Khlar cites to Section 3.01 of the City Charter. But that section of the Charter merely states what the City's seal is to look like:

    The official seal of the City of Tamarac hereby established shall bear the legend "City of Tamarac, Broward County, Florida, (SEAL), Established 1963," and such identification symbols or logo as the commission may establish.

    Ironically, the logo here doesn't even comply.

    Ms. Khlar then cites Fla. Stat. § 495.131, regarding infringement of state-registered trademarks. While the City surprisingly has a Florida trademark registration on this logo, both the City and the state apparently overlooked Fla. Stat. § 495.121, which prohibits registering the any mark that "[c]onsists of or comprises the flag or coat of arms or other insignia of the United States, or of any state or municipality, or of any foreign nation, or any simulation thereof."

    I'm not saying this is a baseless threat. I'm saying (shouting?) GOVERN YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY.

  • On the post: PR-Stupid JetSmarter Will Charge Journalists $2000 If They Don't Write Positive Reviews

    techdescartes ( profile ), 06 Mar, 2017 @ 07:27am

    Punctuation Correction

    I think you mean, "JetSmart? Er…"

  • On the post: Here's A Tip: If You're Desiging Special Apps To Hide From Regulators, You're Going To Get In Trouble

    techdescartes ( profile ), 04 Mar, 2017 @ 07:46pm

    Re:

    Except for that "Click here to show" link next to each hidden comment, the fact that this post is wholly irrelevant to the lawsuit to which TechDirt is a party, and the lawsuit isn't about comments made by third parties but rather posts by TechDirt writers, you're absolutely correct. In other words, you couldn't be more wrong if you tried Harder.

    Speaking of which, if you are catfishing at their direction, even implicitly, there are some friendly state bar officials who really might be interested in meeting you.

  • On the post: Here's A Tip: If You're Desiging Special Apps To Hide From Regulators, You're Going To Get In Trouble

    techdescartes ( profile ), 03 Mar, 2017 @ 10:19pm

    Re:

    You fell asleep before finishing, didn't go back to figure out what you read, and then proceeded to comment anyway?

    Sounds to me like you are catfishing. Just like all your other comments. I would say try Harder, but I'm just guessing that is your lawyer's name.

  • On the post: Vice President Fails To Demand An FBI Investigation After His Private Email Account Is Hacked

    techdescartes ( profile ), 03 Mar, 2017 @ 01:33pm

    Re: Re: "Fails To Demand"? -- "I can only assume"?

    Oh, the irony of a commenter trying to attack Tim for "assuming" immediately proceeding to assume that any moderation whatsoever equals censorship. You keep using that word...

  • On the post: Here's A Tip: If You're Desiging Special Apps To Hide From Regulators, You're Going To Get In Trouble

    techdescartes ( profile ), 03 Mar, 2017 @ 08:13pm

    Think It Through

    I agree that naming a program "Greyball" is too cute and likely will snowball just because it "sounds bad" without anyone really thinking it through.

    Enforcement officials involved in large-scale sting operations meant to catch Uber drivers would sometimes buy dozens of cellphones to create different accounts. To circumvent that tactic, Uber employees would go local electronics stores to look up device numbers of the cheapest mobile phones for sale, which were often the ones bought by city officials working with budgets that were not sizable.

    Why does the government get a pass to have agents buy a dozen phones to appear as if they are a dozen users, yet Uber does not get a pass pretending to have cars in places they are not? Moreover, the NYT article never once says what laws or regulations are being "enforced". Is the government justified in lying about its own conduct to "enforce" unspecified laws or regulations? And depending on the ends, does that justify the government's means?

    Don't forget that a city's taxi regulator has the same self-interest as the taxi cab drivers themselves: protecting their own job. If the taxi market is disrupted sufficiently, their own job is at risk. Just a thought.

  • On the post: IBM Shamed Into Giving Away Awful Patent On Email Out-Of-Office Messages

    techdescartes ( profile ), 02 Mar, 2017 @ 07:29am

    Re: Re: Is it just me?

    If you view comments in the threaded view, this just is a friendly warning that you are approaching the event horizon of a black hole. Turn back now.

    Or not. (You just have to know, don't you? That tug you are feeling is the gravitational pull from which reason and logic cannot escape. You were warned.)

  • On the post: IBM Shamed Into Giving Away Awful Patent On Email Out-Of-Office Messages

    techdescartes ( profile ), 01 Mar, 2017 @ 05:53pm

    Is it just me?

    Or does it seem like Patent Examiners have set their out-of-office replies to "Patent Granted"?

Next >>