If you group those as a trend, then it's a very long trend, stretching all the way back to the '30s... In any case, no one can take ownership of an ordinary word. One of the conditions for registering a trademark is that it is distinctive (see trademark distinctiveness).

Regarding Scotch tape and Q-tip (and others, like band-aid), they were surely distinctive when originally created (ok, "scotch" is a dubious one), but have seen been widely adopted as a generic name for those products, and are likely subject to being challenged in court, just like aspirin was (aspirin is no longer a Bayer trademark, but instead a generic name for acetylsalicylic acid).

There's more to trademark than customer protection. When you invest heavily in promoting your brand, it's reasonable to expect protection against a competitor that wants to take advantage of your advertising by putting out a similarly named product. Even if someone rolled out a music player named "aPod", I have serious doubts anyone would genuinely mistake it for an iPod, but that doesn't mean the name should be allowed.

That being said, I share the opinion that Apple is going way too far with this lawsuit.Everyday they remind me more and more of Microsoft. Actually, as alike as two peas in a ***.

I don't understand why I should be wary of this technology in and of itself.

Because "borrowing" someone's password or security card isn't as... messy?

Mark it on your calendar, then you'll be sure to remember to click that "Download" button three months from now.

It's simpler, faster and more cost effective, not to mention way easier to maintain and carries no additional security risks. Most of /. would probably still write a script though.

either issuing a non-mandatory contract that provides better terms for actors, or creating a joint venture between the production entity and the union.

So the film hasn't even been green-lit and they're already complaining about terms. I won't begrudge a man for trying to get a little extra on his pay check, but the union proposing a joint venture is just ridiculous. The worst part is that they can keep squeezing until the studio either caves in or sets up shop elsewhere, and they'll probably claim either of them as a victory, even if it means that a truck load of dwarves won't be getting any gold.

What moron would rob you with a knife if they can use a gun? Your conclusion is faulty though. The end result isn't a lower crime rate, it's a higher murder rate.

Am I the only one concerned at random researchers keeping track of where I am, where I went and where I'll probably go? I'm not ok with some people *I know* knowing my schedule, let alone random people.

I see no valid reasoning for this study to intrude in privacy like this, since from the get-go it didn't aspire to answer any meaningful question: proving that you're able to ascertain someone's schedule from their phone calls seems like a very sordid thing to prove.