But...but...I just finished replacing the AR and gamification experts with blockchain, fintech and IoT experts.

Susan != Anne

"Bob" didn't work for Verizon. Verizon was the telecom provider for the company "Bob" worked for. The company tasked Verizon with discovering the problem, and uncovered "Bob's", scheme.

Unless they've actually filed for a trademark on this stuff, then it's actually more an issue of "trade dress" - ie being "confusingly similar". I really can't see how they can argue that there's any copyright violation.

If it's about the trademark, why file for a DMCA takedown, since that's for copyrights, not trademarks.

But that would be covered by a *design patent* not a copyright. Copyright covers *specific* creative works - I don't see how this app could violate a copyright unless it included *specific* elements owned by CBS, such as sounds and images. Just putting rounded rectangles on the screen should not be enough to trigger a copyright takedown since CBS would need to point to the specific original work that was copied. LCARs itself cannot be copyrighted - the name can be trademarked, and certain design elements could be patented.

So...um...to get the "free" Playstation Plus and "Complimentary Offering", would I have to give them my credit card number?

We don't use the metric system in the US! You'll never find me!

All of these "articles" are just looking at the "featured" tablet apps list, which are picked by marketing folks and is not the definitive list of Honeycomb-specific or Honeycomb-enabled apps.

For instance, my company updated its app to use Honeycomb features as appropriate, while maintaining backward compatibility with Froyo and Gingerbread (minSdkVersion=8, targetSdkVersion=11), but it's not listed as a "featured" app.

I don't think MyMP3.com allowed sharing, however, MP3Tunes (also created by Michael Robertson) does, and they're being sued by EMI over it.

Apparently the distinction doesn't matter to the record companies - they sued in both scenarios.

It's obviously a port of sendmail written in Perl.

There's no way to know without opening the manually that SCEA even exists. He bought a product manufactured by SCEI, not SCEA. SCEI is based in Japan.

Apparently, it *was* a News Flash back in 2007 when this article was written.

Two chicks at the same time, man.

Has that been used in the past against a patent holder??

Not that I know of. "Slander of Title" is really a real estate law concept, however, SCO made an interesting attempt to use to enforce an alleged copyright claim. In their case, it turns out they didn't actually *have* the title they were claiming was being "slandered" by Novell. However, there really didn't seem to be anything fundamentally wrong with the reasoning - the consequences of claiming you own something you don't has substantial legal history behind it. In this case, it may actually require that MPEG-LA explicitly claim they "own" part of VP8, through a patent, in order to be actionable (assuming, of course, that the claim is false).