Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:This is NOT a matter of trademark violation (Score 2) 245

Not necessarily. Take a look at the relevant portion of the Lantham Act. It would have to fit one of the provisions therein. It might make a false suggestion of affiliation, but it's arguable.

15 U.S.C. 1125 - False designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden

(a) Civil action

(1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which

(A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, or

(B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person's goods, services, or commercial activities,

shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.

Comment This is NOT a matter of trademark violation (Score 1) 245

You violate a trademark if you mis-represent a good or service as that of the trademark holder. And it has to be in the same trademark category that they registered. Having a trademark does not grant ownership of a word, and does not prevent anyone else from using that word. Use of a trademark in reporting and normal discussion is not a violation.

Comment Re:missed opportuinity OP (Score 1, Troll) 181

Total garbage clickbait headline. Slashdot becomes even more tone-deaf each day. The headlines are downright political trolls. This one is copied verbatim from the linked article. It's never more obvious that the people who write articles aren't the ones who write the headlines, when you read this:

The Miami Herald (http://hrld.us/29XQXxu ) reports that under the proposal, acceptable levels of toxins will be increased for more than two dozen known carcinogens and decreased for 13 currently regulated chemicals.

I don't know the reason for relaxing the standards for the >24, but the fact that they are being tightened for 13 and many more are being added is important. It sounds like some knowledgable people might be doing their best to balance economics and public health. We hope there is a scientific basis. They could also be giving a corporate handout-- I don't know. Maybe some progressives would be interested in finding out instead of screaming "baby killers" (see the article) when they find out DHMO levels are going up.

Comment Re: drone ship landings require a lot less fuel? (Score 1) 103

I have the front panel of the VAX 11/780 used to render that scene hanging on my wall, but I got to Pixar after that project. This year and last I've contributed some designs that will fly on a FEMA satellite, and a long time ago did a little work to support the Biosciences mission on the shuttle.

Comment Re:Working with? [Re:well well well] (Score 1) 769

You just tiptoed up to a point that I think is most interesting.

Why would we assume the Russians would do this to support Trump, instead of the candidate who is a self proclaimed socialist, on the eve of his last logistical chance of getting the nomination, who was the one who was directly hurt by the exposed actions?

Now I might have my reasons but to take this question one step further, why would Hillary or the DNC assume this was to help Trump and not Bernie?

Comment Re:Healthcare Reagan style (Score 0) 206

True. The problem of course, is that very often the traits that make for a good physician are not those that make for a good social conservative. Doctors do have a tendency to want to treat sick people.

For free? No, for cold, hard cash. A doctor still works in his self interest. Don't kid yourself, we all have to eat. You just want to eat on someone else's dime.

Comment Re:Selling for $5B is sexist (Score 1) 206

And... how is it doing now? The poorest people I know are still getting no health care for themselves-- their employers give them fewer than 33 hours so that they don't have to subsidize it-- and you can't pay for even the cheapest plans on $30,000. At least their kids are on CHIP.

Obamacare has been given enough time to have results, and all it's done is tax the middle and lower class. Obamacare is a failure.

Comment Re:thats (Score 1) 206

3) Hillary Clinton has not had to declare bankruptcy.

No, instead she just stuck other people with the failure of Whitewater.

She also bought cattle futures under an unlawfully large margin, although she could probably claim ignorance on that. Wouldn't we all like to have a buddy who would do that for us, though?

Slashdot Top Deals

Writing software is more fun than working.

Working...