Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:legalism is a crap philosophy. (Score 1) 554

If the city is in the business of biting the bullet, they could spring for a sidewalk on the near-side of the street (relative to the speedcam footage), and/or widen the street further so there's a better buffer zone between the street and people's lawns where children play. Not disagreeing with speedbumps.

Comment Re:Regions and business strategy (Score 1) 249

Mod this commenter up!

It's all about differential pricing. But the fact is, the distributors can never hide the fact that they're profiting off of people paying half as much as you are. And the only things enforcing this segregation are stupid laws written by the distributors themselves, who then paid lawmakers to pass them.

They're trying to enforce an 18th century business model of sailing ships and ox-wagons on the internet. They must be stopped, because they're a fucking burden on the modern economy.

Comment Re:Regions and business strategy (Score 2, Interesting) 249

The idea is: People in, say, sub-saharan Africa have less money and less disposable income, so they can price their product cheaper there and make up for it in volume. While people in, say, the US have a lot more disposable income and can withstand paying twice or three times as much as those in SSA.

The problem with this model is that Americans know that if the company is selling it cheaper elsewhere they're still definitely making a profit there, and price discrimination based on geography is bullshit. They're making money in Sub-saharan Africa charging $2, AND ALSO making MORE money in the US charging $12. It's totally bullshit for them to charge ME $12 when Mbutu only pays $2 while still turning a profit for the company. Why should I pay anything when the company is just trying to bilk me out of an EXTRA $10 when they're still making money on $2? Fuck them, I'm pirating and giving them $0 instead.

That kind of thing. The idea of geographic segregation only makes sense if there's actually barriers to delivery that are different between areas and ALSO an asymmetry of information. There is neither since the internet exists, so any geographical segregation is utter bullshit and laughable.

Comment Re:Prediction (Score 3, Funny) 249

They think that geographic segregation can benefit them because they still think that it takes half a year by sea to get from England to America. The studio executives are fucking ancient morons who need to just die already. Let younger people who actually understand the world step up and have their time to actually manage the businesses correctly from a temporal perspective less than 200 years old.

Comment Re:Business (Score 1) 212

That's why I said "kind of". They only have to sue if the guy doing the infringement won't play ball at all, and if the guy doing the infringement causes confusion about who owns and endorses the brand. In this circumstance the wording on the promotional material all includes the language "unofficial" preceding the statements that it's a PAX kickoff party and that it's pokemon themed. Pokemon International could have chosen to:

Overlook it
Contact the promoter asking for a different wording on promotional material with an emphasis on the fact that it wasn't endorsed by Nintendo.
Contact the promoter asking them to pay a nominal one-time fee, in addition to the clarification.
Contact the promoter asking them to join in a program for minor users of the trademark and become some kind of partner to the licensing scheme, in addition to the aforementioned steps.
Contact the promoter asking them to cease and desist (possibly even with a legal threat)

All acceptable actions, with graduated response built in. All more even handed than what Pokemon International did. And it would have likely resulted in making them look diplomatic at best, and unnoticed at worst.

Pokemon International and Nintendo are managed by morons.

Comment Re:Business (Score 2) 212

That never happens. And also, you're confusing copyright with trademark. You don't lose copyright if you don't defend it. Otherwise CreativeCommons wouldn't exist. Trademark on the other hand does require active defense. I haven't read the exact details, but if they're suing for copyright it's completely unnecessary and at their discretion. It's something they chose to do. If they're suing for trademark, then they kind of have to.

Slashdot Top Deals

Life would be so much easier if we could just look at the source code. -- Dave Olson

Working...