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.

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.

Then why is there such a thing as design patents at all?

I mean, ever single time they've been explained to me, they seem much better served by copyright. Why do they get a patent instead of a copyright that's likely to last [retroactively applied ever increasing amounts of time]?

Serves that pile of human garbage right. Take them for every dime. Leave them out on the streets.

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.

The fourth word on that poster is "UNOFFICIAL". That's how you know it isn't actually related to PAX in any official capacity. Funny how the prefix "un" negates your presumption.

You interpreted it correctly. Hey man, I just clocked out of work on a Friday. So, could you cut me just a little slack. I'm usually a grammar nazi, but honestly, I'm having trouble getting my eyeballs to focus.

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.

It's still a dick move on Pokemon International's part. They ought to just enjoy the publicity. There's millions of non-licensed depictions all over the web generating small amounts of money for millions of people, yet they go after a guy doing a theme party? This basically is proof that they'll sue anyone whose address they can find.

I know the law, and what you say is true. What I'm saying is that it's not particularly egregious and super fucking petty of Pokemon Int'l to sue for something so piddly, and it makes them look like pathetic money-grubbers who can't just sit back and enjoy their already massive popularity. It'd be better for them to just not fucking sue people and be liked, rather than sue people and make themselves look like acquisitive morons.

On the other hand, the little piece of information YOU forgot is that this event was free. If they were charging at the door, then sure, sue away. But seriously, if someone isn't even charging for the event, then who gives a fuck? Pokemon Int'l shouldn't. They should enjoy the free publicity and save the lawyer fees for something useful... Like drafting up new TOS agreements for the Wii U. You know, the good honest work that lawyers typically do.

If that's how Pokemon Int'l treats its fans, I shudder to think of how they treat their enemies and competitors. What a fucking shitty thing to do. These people love Pokemon enough to have a big fun party kicking of PAX, and all Nintendo cares about is extracting it's fucking pound of flesh and in the process looking like a big, wobbly, flaccid dildo. In other words: Go fuck yourselves Nintendo, if you can't treat your fans well, then you deserve no fans. You bunch of litigious morons.

Why?

Good luck with that...

I still don't get the appeal of touch screen laptops. Why would I want to smear my finger grease on a 17" screen when I already have a mouse and a keyboard? "Oh, but it also turns into a heavy, oversized tablet that does everything a laptop does, except it has the battery life of a laptop, so it lasts like a few hours, instead of a few days." I'm not into cleaning my PC screen after each use. I'd rather save the money and have a non-touchscreen.