... of counting the number of different accounts that logged in from a particular IP in some time period. Problem is a number of ISPs your IP address changes frequently as they are dynamically allocated and for others they don't have sufficient addresses and have subscribers behind a NAT firewall or some other web proxy that makes it look like they come from the same IP address.

Except for all the shenanigans that MS are playing again with either automatically switching default browser to Edge or tricking people into doing it or totally ignoring the default browser when opening links from most MS software and using Edge anyway. Or all the Microsoft store trickery where instead of finding an installed application Cortana pops up a sales pitch for another piece of software sold on the store, sometimes Microsoft software. Not to mention the ads that seem to keep sneaking into various bits of purchased versions of Windows and other Microsoft software which are always then blamed on "limited testing" or "test features accidentally released to the public" or locking down or crippling otherwise good software or systems with non-essential updates. And that's not even touching all the private data that they collect from most Windows users.

Most expensive and also least targeted.

I know what Watson is.. its too expensive and legally burdensome.

We were looking at adopting some AI tech for a fairly generic requirement that fell directly within one of the Watson variants capabilities. While it had all the bells and whistles we needed the IBM Watson solution was twenty times more expensive than the next bid and it also included signing over all sorts of rights to our sensitive data and data models to IBM where all other prospective solutions had no such requirements. In the end we successfully went with a provider that was using mainly open source solutions for around 10% of the Watson bid that we could have implemented ourselves for around the same cost had we had a little bit more time to build the appropriate expertise before the project deadline.

Actually its not. Trademarks are on the entire registered mark, not on individual components. Either there has to be substantial similarity or significant confusion.

They are similar but not substantially similar. The font and text are obviously and significantly different and the shade of blue is noticeably different too. In addition you generally can't trademark basic shapes so the fact they are both octagons in itself is not sufficient for infringement.

As for confusion this can be difficult to prove as unless there is clear customer confusion (eg. customers calling company A to support company B's product) which is unlikely in this case so it comes down to a very subjective determination by a judge or a jury (if the case goes that far).

This is not as clear cut as a lot of people think.

There is more to the internet than a web presence on the base www. root. Just because there wasn't an active website doesn't mean that the domain is not being used for other purposes. Especially back in the early days where you were just as likely to have a telnet portal, FTP site or a Gopher server than a website. Or for that matter there could have been pages elsewhere and on sub-domains.

You are correct. Brexit made no difference.

And for those who think that the UK might have joined with the EU plan had they been part of the EU still and been able to do so, the UK was invited to participate in the EU programme even after leaving the union and declined... this was after the UK had already signed the contracts for its vaccines and around the time the EU realised that they were going to struggle because they had been slow to act.

To be fair.. it makes a change from Oracle suing their customers and partners.

This is true. I could have worded my point better. What I wanted to highlight is that Twitch are digging a deeper legal hole for themselves. They are punishing and therefore alienating streamers who are doing everything they are asked (and therefore streamers possibly might have a legal case themselves against Twitch, especially in the EU and other areas where right to be forgotten law may apply for incomplete deletion of data) while at the same time failing to properly handle the DMCA notices and actually remove the content from their system.

There are multiple reports of streamers deleting the content as requested just to continue to get DMCA notifications/strikes as while it appears to the streamer the clips have been deleted it is still available in Twitches CDN from alternate links.
https://www.ginx.tv/en/twitch/...

It's also their responsibility to be a profitable company for their shareholders. If they deal that Koda want means someone watching a music video costs Google more in licensing fees and other costs than they can get in advertising and other revenue with no prospect of that changing going forward or secondary income streams such as selling merchandising then they are practically obliged to turn down that deal.

Why not? They still have the right to speak for themselves or are you saying that the law should limit their own speech entirely removing their rights?

By your logic they would be free to post on other social media platforms but not host anything at all themselves. Think about that for a moment. Twitter as a company would be able to post whatever they want on Facebook, including posts negative to Facebook itself, without any restriction or repercussion but not post anything at all on their own platform. Facebook would be barred from removing any posts by Twitter or blocking them from using the service in any way.

While the Section 230 protection is intended to allow them to provide a service to others without being held liable for those that are using the service. In fact the law actually gives specific permission for them to remove or otherwise censor posts for almost any reason as long as it is done in good faith. Twitter T&Cs are clear about what they may do for unsubstantiated claims and glorification of violence. Section 230 is NOT about allowing free speech, rather it is about enabling companies to provide services without having to have an army of lawyers pre-approve ALL user activity to protect themselves legally. This would be unworkable and force many companies across the board from removing all publicly available forums to limit legal liability. Everything from 4chan to Slashdot to Youtube to Amazon review sections would be too risky to be allowed to exist. I don't see you arguing against Slashdot moderation systems but its actually harsher than anything Twitter ever does.

If anyone other than Trump had posted those things the posts would have been removed entirely and the account closed. Any apparent special treatment that Twitter has shown him is actually in is favour.

Anyone has at any time the right to just stop using any service. There are alternatives and people can quite happily live without the service at all.

There is almost nothing that is likely copyrightable under US federal or state law. And what might be is so minimal that it would likely not Grant any kind of award from the court. Full analysis by an actual copyright lawyer can be found here https://youtu.be/FpSrazubI-U

Am I being cynical that I'm expecting the price the end user pays for power supplies to say the same (or effectively even go up as higher power PSUs will be the norm at the price of the older PSUs at the same power rating) while the cost of a motherboard will climb 20% for the extra components?

Except that its still a monopoly or anti-trust case unless there is a competitor that has significant market share (which none of them do) or Google offers a choice of stores on first use and dosn't leverage its market position for unfair advantage which they do effectively forcing their store on others through licensing deals with manufacturers. The existence of other companies products in itself isn't defence against monopoly when they only account for a small fraction of market and have access issues. This has been proven in court with Microsoft and others several times now.