Broad words are trademarked all the time. Comically, I picked a random word, and found out it was trademarked by the company I currently work for... weird. Not calling this an excuse, just saying it happens and King is hardly the first.

Anyways the chain of events isn't entirely clear from what is available here. Sounds like King is just being a typical business, protecting their stuff. I feel bad for Ransom as it seems he got hosed. I'll just add this story to my list of reasons the system blows chunks. I have no idea how to really fix trademarks, patents and copyright systems... but the system definitely needs better financial aid for little guys so people like Ransom have a fighting chance without ruining their lives.

Though i still maintain the games are not confusing in any significant way.

Not only are you an asshole, you're wrong. gj. Ignored.

How is it dishonest? I'm talking about the responses here. Why would I care what reddit or digg or cnn or anybody else thinks if I'm talking about /. responses?

A square shiny candy vs. a candy valentine heart.
A butterscotch candy vs. a gingerbread man.
A candy apple vs. a banana.
A blue circle with "CS" in it vs. a blue candy with a ridge in the middle.
You honestly think an apple and a banana are the same shape? A gingerbread man and an amorphous blob? I don't get it.

A cursive font with all letters linked is "identical" to a printed font? The exclamation point alone is short & fat in Candy Crush, but tall and skinny in Candy Swipe. I don't understand where your "identical" affirmation is coming from here.

And that is worse than using lawyers to stop a "future" entity from using a trademark that some other pre-existing entity that is not you, first used? My point is where does Runsome get the authority to stop King, when AIM was using the trademarks before Runsome? Sounds to me that its not a matter of using the trademarks first, but actually a matter of who complains first...

Oh I read that. It is why Im not convinced.

First, honestly when I look at the comparisons, I see no confusion. If King actually cloned Candy Swipe, they did so at such a high level as to not require any litigation. "A game about candy that uses a touch screen." Beyond that, what is the same? The colors are similar... shapes are wildly different. Count of the # of objects is different. The gameplay is different. Candy Crush has far more content. The list goes on.
So I'm curious... who here was actually confused by the games? Who here played Candy Crush for a while before realizing "omg, this isn't Candy Swipe"? I honestly do not believe any readers here were confused.

Second, look at Candy Crusher. Make a little comparison pdf of screenshots between the three games. Any claim Runsome makes on King's game can be done by AIM Productions on Runsome, continuing the chain of trademark confusion back a little further, making Runsome's entire claim bubkis. Runsome "cloned" AIM's Candy Crusher just as much as King "cloned" Candy Swipe.

Just because you lost an argument, doesn't mean you were bullied.

All this is assuming the cost of moving people 1 stop is the same regardless of the total number of stops in the trip. But if its like pretty much anything else, volume = cheaper. So short trips are not necessarily overpriced.
Take the stations for instance. Their cost to build & maintain can probably be correlated to the number of people that pass through daily. The more people you have passing through, the more security, sanitation, and raw square footage you need.

1 person moving 4 stops (AD) means there is 1 person at the A station, and 1 person at the D station.
3 people moving 1 stop (AB, BC, CD) means there is 1 person at the A station, 1 at the D station, and 2 going through B & C
Presumably this would mean higher overhead incurred by shorter trips, thus justifying the higher prices.

Except by his own admission, he did, and chose to ignore it (bottom of the article). So he saw a safe with something inside, and it was open. He looked around and saw a sign that said "Access to safe contents restricted to authorized personnel. Do not touch." He then decided something along the lines of "Oh I better grab everything before they notice and shut the door."

You don't need a real-world analogy though, you just need an understanding of the thought process behind the "crime": He had a reasonable belief that unrestricted access to the information was a mistake, but chose to ignore that in favor of his personal desires.

While profiting on other people's mistakes is a hallmark of capitalism, when dealing with society or the government, it is a dick move. To me, the fine seems to be an appropriate incentive to get people to think before they act.

I like taking pedant awards. Lets give it a shot.

The plain appeals process is a bad example perhaps, but there are other exceptions to double jeopardy that can result in multiple trials, convictions & punishments for the same crime: feds & states can prosecute separately & military court marshals being two I can think of. Of course they can also (not so) simply define your crime as multiple crimes (the act & conspiracy, for instance) and try you separately for each.

But then going back to appeals, especially due to misconduct on one side or the other, an appellate judge can toss out even acquittal verdicts, starting everything over, and letting the government get you again.

Defining double jeopardy is as entertaining as defining marriage. You're not violating anybody's rights, you're just clarifying them.

Oh really, hence my surprise that you would say something like that and my attempt to get clarification to maybe start a discussion. Don't go on /. after your daddy fucks you. You're way too angry.

lol wow.
That is exactly what you wrote, substituting references to missiles specifically rather than ordnance in general. The only question is whether the first sentence is referring to subsonic or supersonic missiles being blind. Perhaps the 2nd sentence clears that up... but then you would have used a semicolon no doubt to join the thoughts. What would serve everybody better than being a prick would be to put your own remedial English skills to work rewording your post.

Nevermind. Just fuck off.

While I admire your pessimism, I think you're a little off. The personality traits that help one last the 20-30 years in the military necessary to be promoted to a position to make those kinds of decisions do not normally include greed.
I'm more inclined to believe their drive lies with "blowing shit up", and "America! Fuck ya!".

Wait, what?
Are you really saying blind supersonic ordinance doesn't present a threat to the US Navy?

Fat dudes?

Moderators get paid?!

Somebody owes me a check...