If the Schmuck Company sold Arduino-designed boards under the name Schmuckware, without referring to Arduino, it would infringe on the CC license.

The CC-BY-SA is not an advertising clause. They can include the attribution as a label or note attached to the product package as accompanying it. BY-SA doesn't require (Or grant permission for) them to print that the item is an Arduino or Arduino brand product in marketing material.

The sea level rise is approximately 1 to 4 millmeters per year.

Something tells me there aren't a very large number of cities within a few inches of having to relocate.

A lot, and then, a lot more. How else do you stop fossil fuel usage, ask nicely?

Build more Nuclear power plants, make the licensing easier and less expensive, and pour funding into MSR technology and making Nuclear available more safely and at smaller scales. Create a tax on industrial complexes and power plants based on Net CO2 released.

Tax vehicle owners for the expected Net release of CO2 based on their registered vehicles, and for vehicles that burn fuel: regular emissions check, with mandatory monthly reporting by the vehicle computers, and at least 1 annual check to make sure all emission controls sensors are operational.

to ensure that only the intended active pharmaceutical ingredients and excipients are in the dose

It goes beyond purity of the dose. If a person ingested some medicine containing DMSO as a delivery vector.... even if there were no contaminants in the dose, when the DMSO gets into the blood stream, it can dissolve things that are on the surface of the skin, which would not otherwise be a danger.

OK, then a clarification: Since they've lost nearly every motion and case that's been in front of a judge, it *hasn't been* going well for them.

At this point, they ought to be debating over whether the original management of SCO get tried with 51 counts of criminal charges or 52 counts.

No... you are just taking Arduino LLC's side of it.

Trademark rights derive from use, not the registration. It is similar to the manner in which a book you write is subject to copyright protection, whether or not you registered. A trademark registration is not the adjudication. Improper or unenforceable registrations sometimes happen, And sometimes enforceable marks may fail to have a registration, see Common Law Trademark rights.

Or the holder of the trademark failed to have exclusive distinctive use before or after the registration in the field they claimed.

The matters of infringement, and the possibility of tortious interference, are just legal claims that might be made, and would need to be shown based on the facts.

If they were as clean-cut as you suggest, the 'dispute' would have been settled by now.

So... what's to discuss. I don't think there's a law against being a complete asshole, so smart projects wins.

For Trademark rights to be effective, you have to both register them AND have exclusive use of the mark when you registered it, AND continue to maintain that exclusive use of the mark.

It would seem that Smart Projects might have registered first, but failed to maintain exclusive use, therefore, resulting in Arduino SRL acquiring the trademark as well.

DMSO is one of the most effective solvents known and makes the solution pass readily into the eyeball.

Wait a minute... DMSO itself is a substance thought to be explicitly harmful to the eye.

But there's a bigger problem.... it's too good a solvent... as in, exposure to Dmso can allow toxic materials to be absorbed through the skin that the skin would ordinarily protect against. Very dangerous stuff.

I could make a comment about how, since 0bama, poor is the majority -

If Obama had reduced the wealth of a majority of people, then ultimately he made everyone richer, since in the US... poor is relative. They call you poor if you want more and you have less material stuff than what the media portrays as the average person.

The rich are defined as the people who have more stuff you want, or more access to money than you.

If you had a time machine, and brought someone here from the early 1900s... they would look at all the resources the poorest of the americans have access to, and call us all rich, even the ones with the fewest resources.

Today they call you poor if you can't afford to buy a prefabricated home or apartment built by someone else located in a high-traffic area, with electricity, running water, mechanical transportation, and manufactured food products created by someone else.

By timeless standards.... if you don't have to exert your own labor to build your own shelter from parts scavenged from nature, treat your own injuries, scavenge for your water sources, walk on your own two feet to get from place to place, hunt and gather your own food using sharpened sticks, and your own bare hands, then you are probably richer than 99% of those who ever lived.

I think its going to be hard for anyone to show how Google's actions hurt them.

Buyer's remorse. Example scenario:

Google used cookies to track me and display the most effective advertising that most greatly appealed to my preferences and was most persuasive to me.

Because the advertisement shown was more persuasive; they talked me into purchasing X with a more persuasive Ad, even though buying X was not worth it.

I would not have purchased it, if the more persuasive ad wasn't shown as a result of tracking me and tailoring ad selection to my vulnerabilities (preferences).

Therefore, Google should be responsible for my lost $$$ in non-refundable digital purchases.

because they usually can hide their text messages from freedom of information act requests.

This is probably because IT policies for maintaining compliance with the law and the courts in some regards to retention of public records simply haven't caught up with the new technology.

The electronic records laws generally do not exclude new methods of stored documents or communications. Once upon a time when e-mail was brand new.... e-mail messages were also "claimed" not to be records.

It's just a matter of time, before someone is penalized legally for failure to produce SMS messages.

Since when did poor become a minority?

In many cities, there may be some correlation between wealth of an area and race composition of the residents, just like there is some correlation between race and having a criminal record. Therefore, if a broadband carrier isn't very careful about the manner in which they exclude "unwealthy" areas, they may consequently find themselves at the wrong end of a lawsuit at some point.

It's why the US government has suggested that employers discriminating against applications with a criminal record might constitute unlawful racial discrimination, if the employer adopts a de-facto blanket policy of refusing employment to criminals, then they are opening themselves up to lawsuits against discrimination through "disparate impact" theory.

NONE of the providers will run any kind of broadband to that area because it is poorer where they all run to the rich developments in the north part of town.

Think we can get a lawsuits agains Comcast under Civil rights discrimination, for disparately not offering Title21 regulated essential utility coverage to some areas that are minority-populated?

I would in principle support reigning in on the patriot act, and possibly this bill. However, something tells me "This bill might be a trap", an item with no chance of passing; but either they want to figure out who will support the bill, so they can start investigating these people, or they will bury some Trojan horses in the bill itself in order to kill.

A congressperson votes for the bill, then they will be immediately under investigation as 'an enemy of the state' and attempts by the executive in response to undermine that person's support.

Will folks be shipped off to Guantanamo, for petitioning their representative in support?

When can we go back to text-based browsing and work on aggressively killing this Javascript and graphic Images stuff?