From the article:

"People who rent out space on Airbnb, VRBO and other markets for temporary housing are facing fines by the City Planning Department and eviction on the grounds of illegally operating hotels."

BTW: I realize that the GP said that the City of San Fancisco was not enforcing "anything" and that you're correctly rebutting that. However, the substance of GP's post concerned the evictions, not the fines.

The article reads as if landlords are jumping the city's process, particularly since there's no mention of actual fines. You should note that the code in my other response requires the city to provide an owner with a reasonable period of time to correct the violation before they becomes liable for a fine.

There's a difference between:

"People who rent out space on Airbnb, VRBO and other markets for temporary housing are facing fines by the City Planning Department and eviction on the grounds of illegally operating hotels."

and

"People who rent out space on Airbnb, VRBO and other markets for temporary housing are facing fines and eviction by the City Planning Department on the grounds of illegally operating hotels."

Can you spot it?

You should also read this article analyzing the issue from an owner's perspective. You'll note that it doesn't suggest that the San Francisco has the ability to evict the tenant... merely to fine the landlord.

Finally, the actual code (warning: very large text document) lists several penalties, none of which include eviction. You're looking for Section 41A.5, "Unlawful Conversion," page 3902.

Please do not conflate the qualities of the tangible and the intangible.

I'm sorry, we're not dicussing the properties of the tangible versus the intangible. We're discussing the vicissitudes of natural versus social law. The quote and comment also have nothing to do with simultaneity.

"Never mind that, look over here" is not a rebuttal. Thanks for playing.

"Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices." - Thomas Jefferson

"It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it, but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it." - Thomas Jefferson, very same letter.

Please give me a call the next time your family departs on vacation...

Seriously, why can't we have cables that fit into each other as well as be symmetrical. Oh wait, that's thanks to the patent system [google.com]. At least this is progress and maybe we will have one standard for most types of application (not holding my breath).

One person replying to you already pointed out that this patent expired in 2006.

Even more importantly, this was a design patent. It only covers the ornamental design for a device or article of manufacture. If you're reading it to cover something functional, such as symmetry of the cable connector, then you're doing it wrong. Make a symmetrical cable connector that doesn't look like that (round with a double-diamond pin configuration), and I virtually guarantee that any competent patent lawyer could have an infringement lawsuit thrown out on the cheap on summary judgment.

Or, Montsanto will, besides owning the entire food business, also own the entire alcoholic drink business as well.

Or, you know, you could grow your own food and make your own drink using 'heirloom' stock. Rumor has it people have based entire businesses around heirloom strains.

Welcome to the new world - where the only thing you can have is specially filtered water. After all, a plain glass of tap or bottled may have Monstanto yeast in it, and you'll need to license that bottle if you want to drink it.

I've looked at every reported decision where Monsanto has sued some poor innocent farmer who allegedly had pollen blown into his fields -- which is really hard when you're talking about Roundup-ready soybeans -- and, amazingly, the poor farmer always manages to convince the judge that he intentionally planted large quantities of the Roundup-ready crop. He doesn't mean to convince the judge of that. He just happens to do so by 1. nuking a field with Roundup and then collecting the seeds of the surviving crop to replant or 2. buying seed from a non-seed elevator (unusual but not illegal) and then nuking the planted seedlings with Roundup (because of course you'd apply a non-selective herbicide to your non-Roundup-ready crop).

So it's obvious you can karma-whore by railing against the agri-villan, but can you back it up with facts? Or not?

Since TFA didn't bother clearly saying what versions are vulnerable (except, as you assert, in the comments) then it wasn't worthy of a /. post, which is my whole fucking point. English, motherfucker, do you speak it?

Your point never addressed whether the TFA was worthy of a /. post. Your point was directed at the article summary and Soulskill's editing up until 8:04 EDT. Once you finally notices that TFA contracted your rant, you suddenly chose to attack it. I can't read something that hasn't been written yet. And speaking is not involved at all. Idiot.

SparkFun doesn't really mind Fluke's trade dress (other than believing it to be overly broad - they themselves deem the old SFE DMM's border to be more of an orange..). What they mind is the inflexibility of the system once you're confronted with such an issue. For example, SFE didn't appear to have any way to tell CBP that they believed the borders to be orange and thus not even run afoul of the trade dress to begin with and enter e.g. arbitration with either the CBP or with Fluke.

What they mind is having to take any responsibility for investigating their situation at all. Or, apparently, spending any money to modify the meters, ship the meters out, or do anything to help themselves short of whining that the world is being so unfair to their $25+ million-per-year import-from-China-all-the-time business that has remained blissfully ignorant concerning a routine import-export problem. Just wait until they find out that there are arms control laws that apply to their international electronics shipments. It'll blow their minds.

Contacting a trademark attorney is not hard. Using Google is even easier: "customs exclusion order appeal"
First page result: Your Options After An ITC Exclusion Order - Law360

While it's easy enough to say that SFE should have done better in figuring out this could occur beforehand, that doesn't help once the issue does arise.

Picking up a phone or using Google helps a lot more than claiming that the yellow surround included in your very own picture of your very own device, which is quite clearly yellow, is not in fact yellow while writing couple thousand words about how this is everyone's fault but your own.

Clearly they went for a trademark rather than the appropriate design patent so it wouldn't expire. But a trade mark is supposed to be exactly that: A word or mark on a product or marketing material that indicates the company or brand that is selling it. Like a Nike swoosh or the Apple with a bite out of it or even a word mark like IBM. It would be like Nike trying to trademark a two toned sneaker or Ford trying to trademark a black muscle car with a yellow stripe rather than just the swoosh or the word "Ford" in an oval.

Just because we can say that the government is at fault for awarding this trademark in the first place, doesn't mean we can absolve the company of an abuse of intellectual property law.

Yet we can absolve the company of this 'abuse' of intellectual property law, and we can say that the government is not at fault for awarding the trademark, because the law concerning the use of color as a trademark has very clear ever since 1995.

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court in Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., Inc., 514 U.S. 159 concluded that "a color may sometimes meet the basic legal requirements for use as a trademark" and that "[opposing] arguments do not justify a special legal rule preventing color alone from serving as a trademark..." The trademark that was upheld was a gold-green color for dry cleaning press pad covers.

You can throw the word "abuse" around all you like, but it is you who are attempting to abuse the law. The law is not what you think the law is, the law is what the statutes and court decisions specify the law is. If you do not like the law, it is your responsibility to change it through the legislative process. Until then, telling others that the law is what it is what you think it ought to be is either wanton recklessness or sheer fraud.

No, you're point is to completely ignore TFA's statement that "We saw affected machines with a whole range of kernel 2.6 subversions."

There's no point in demanding that the summary list the 36 subversions that are vulnerable and/or the 4 which are not when the source article does not include any such information to begin with. Any whoever moderated your subsequent replay as insightful is a moron.

And an unfortunate submission with "Michael" rather than "Martin" sucks the air out of the room. Wheeee...

Not even wrong. I guarandamntee you that none of the affected computers were actually running 2.6.0, and it wouldn't have been /that/ long ago that such an obviously stupid and ill-researched claim wouldn't have been posted.

Soulskill didn't write "the 2.6.0 version," he wrote "the 2.6 version." As in potentially 2.6.0 through 2.6.39.4. When posters refer to Windows, you don't automatically assume Windows 1.0. When posters refer to Windows XP, you don't automatically assume Windows XP RTM. Why would you assume that someone referring to "the 2.6 version," when there never was a single "2.6" version, is referring to 2.6.0 versus most of the 2.6 subversions?

FYI, from an author comment in TFA:
"Thanks for the comment. We saw affected machines with a whole range of kernel 2.6 subversions. Version 2.6.18 appeared to be particularly prevalent."

You may have done five minutes of googling, but you didn't do 5 minutes of reading, and you for sure didn't read the article's clear statement that "All of the affected web servers that we have examined use the Linux 2.6 kernel."

Now go flame Michael Lee so that we can watch him destroy you...

I didn't claim to be opposed. I also, pretty clearly, did not agree with Sparkfun's argument that their multimeter was somehow "orange."

Actually read the TFA (and the links to the trademark in question) and you can see that:

1. Fluke did not trademark yellow multimeters.

1. The linked document is not the trademark, it is the USPTO's TSDR entry. You can download the actual trademark "Registration Certificate" by clicking on the "Documents" tab and looking for it. When you pull the the registration certificate, there is no disclaimer of color. That's a USPTO data entry error from their conversion to an electronic records system.

So yes, Fluke didn't trademark yellow multimeters. They trademarked dark gray and yellow multimeters with a particular positioning of colors.

If you look at an image of SparkFun's multimeter, there is a striking resemblance.

Exactly. Sparkfun claims that "Our multimeters are actually kind of orange, not Fluke yellow.". Uh huh. Pull the other one.

Because Fluke's trademark specifically states "Color is not claimed as a feature of the mark" As such, it is difficult to see how Customs is turning them away for a trademark violation because of color.

The linked document is not the trademark, it is the USPTO's TSDR entry. You can download the actual trademark "Registration Certificate" by clicking on the "Documents" tab and looking for it. The registration application never disclaims color. In fact, when you pull the the registration certificate, there is no disclaimer of color.

Because the ITC looks at the actual registration document, not a semi-official electronic index, its order doesn't adopt that indexing mistake as gospel. Customs is following the ITC exclusion order. Not that difficult to see.