Bad Call For Referee Dispute 162
I'm frankly surprised we haven't seen more of these cases, and I'll expect to see more in the future. Because arbitration under the UDRP is not binding in the U.S. court system, or any court system that I know of, the loser can always sue the winner. And, in any case of any importance, will.
If GM and Ford have a disagreement about a domain name, do you think the results of an arbitration ruling mean jack to them? Will they meekly accept the results of some international panel and go home?
No, of course not. The loser will file the court case the same day. To them, an arbitration decision means nothing except maybe a rhetorical point for their lawyer to bring up.
Large corporations can never lose an arbitration, they can only win it. It's individuals and small corporations, who don't have the resources for an extended court battle, who stand to lose under the UDRP.
The system is broken (Score:1)
I suggest that we post disputes to a special section on /. and let users figure it out...
The problem with capped Karma is it only goes down...
geez (Score:1)
Here we go again (Score:2)
Threatening to sue a company because their actions against said company caused a consumer boycott; that's the laugh of the day. Has anyone ever heard of this type of legal action before? "These guys forced us to be petty and mean, which caused people not to like us, which caused them not to buy our magazine." Wah!
They sort of have a point (Score:2)
This would be a more tricky case than it seems if the judge hadn't gone way overboard on his decision, past even what Referee's lawyers wanted. I mean, it basically gives Referee the rights over the use of that word, even in the path. This is (obviouly) wrong.
But their original point does stand. Having two sites Referee.com and eReferee.com is confusing, especially when it comes to things like search engines and so on. There needs to be a way to ensure sites are easily distinguishable so that things like this aren't necessary.
Unfortunately ICANN isn't going to be doing anything about it. They're far too deeply in the pockets of corporate USia, and they are quite happy to let big corporations take anyone to court wherever there's even the slightest hint they might win.
If they can do that, then i'm doing this (Score:1)
Re:The system is broken (Score:1)
*shudder*
Seems fair enough (Score:4)
It's called passing off - where a product or company is confusingly similar to another company, such that consumers might be misled, the tort of passing off is committed.
In this case, there is certainly such a risk of confusion - many companies simply prepend e to their names to form their electronic division - and so ereferee would seem to be referee's electronic division.
It is not, as is claimed a ban on the use of the word. This is a very restrictive action in law, designed to protect the goodwill of companies trading from ripoff merchants.
If this happened in the physical world, there would be no complaint, so why should the internet be any difference?
It's just the natural evolution of the internet - as it comes under the same regulation as the rest of human endeavor, companies will be protected at last.
I really can't see any problem here.
Great business idea (Score:1)
What a wonderful world we live in! Predatory capitalism in it's finest form. Hitler and Adam Smith would be proud!
Re:If they can do that, then i'm doing this (Score:1)
CNET Article Seems to Contradict the Arbitrator (Score:2)
Ah, I see now, the arbitrator's ruling was part of the ICANN dispute resolution process. Referee Magazine didn't like the result, went to Federal Court and won. And, since the ICANN process is non-binding, eReferee really lost.
Guys, if I understand this correctly, the Slashdot story really doesn't reflect what happened.
--
Dave Aiello
Re:Are You Sure eReferee Lost? (Score:1)
You can read more about it here... http://www.officiating.com/index.cgi?page=letter2
Later,
Rob
Re:Are You Sure eReferee Lost? (Score:1)
Re:Are You Sure eReferee Lost? (Score:1)
The arbitrator found in favor of eReferee.com. That's ICANN's board. Then, a US Federal court reversed the order, saying eReferee.com can't use the trademark "referee" *anywhere* in the address, not even in the path.
Good news for AOL/Time Warner (Score:2)
Not like there are any news sites like that out there.
Quality of judicial decisions (Score:1)
Re:Are You Sure eReferee Lost? (Score:1)
This is censorship. (Score:1)
Lately it looks as though whoever is more famous (read : money) will win court cases because of the enourmous cost of a court battle. This is completely wrong.
Second The judge had NO right to prevent eReferee from using the word "referee" in their website. Is that not Censorship! I guess the freedom of speech and expression do not matter in this case. So if I make a site that a big company doesnt like IBM (International Business Machines) they can sue and I then CANNOT use the words INTERNATIONAL, BUSINESS, or MACHINES!!! How stupid does that sound. Maybe IBM should start suing people that use the word business or international, they have the money for it!
This case just goes so show that a lot of people dont know crap about the net ( read : Presiding Judge) and will make bad descicions because lawyers are good at what they do ( read : Bullshit ).
Lord Arathres
Re:Are You Sure eReferee Lost? (Score:1)
Strong medecine needed for lawyers. Like arsenic. (Score:5)
Naming things is a HARD and expensive problem (see: Coca-Cola Co. & "Ttab," shortened to "Tab.")
However its made almost impossible by lawyers who, lacking common sense and speaking in gibberish, (did you know that the legal definition of "better" is "as good as"?) utterly throw the notion of language as a consually derived means of communication into a cocked hat and have turned it into a revenue producing source of obfustation.
That's why Prince went with TAFKSP and that logo as symbolically representing him. The lawyers couldn't get a handle on it.
That's also why the Canadian government gives all Amerindians band and individual numbers. Their names change according to the lives they have lived and what one may call him or her self may not be what others call him or her.
Yes, we are sure eReferee lost? (Score:1)
IMHO it's time to get businesses like this (Referee, not eReferee) off the internet. Maybe ICANN should have the right to suspend or withdraw domain names for companies who bring the internet into dispute.
Oh, and
--
Re:Quality of judicial decisions (Score:2)
Remember the judge in France who decided that Yahoo had to determine if a visitor was French, and prevent them from seeing auctions involving Nazi memorabilia?
Re:They sort of have a point (Score:5)
But their original point does stand. Having two sites Referee.com and eReferee.com is confusing, especially when it comes to things like search engines and so on
Do you ever confuse www.bay.com and www.ebay.com?
Apt name (Score:3)
Phillip.
Re:The system is broken (Score:1)
Spoken like a true academic.
I Made the Mistake of Reading the Arbitration 1st (Score:2)
--
Dave Aiello
Other sites under the gun... (Score:4)
It's a made-up word. We haven't had a chance to tell them that. They believe that rAdiculopathy is so common a misspelling that we have no right to do business under our proper name.
Our only hope is to get the word ridiculopathy entered into Websters next edition.
Help us convince Merriam-Webster [ridiculopathy.com]
Re:Seems fair enough (Score:1)
For example Apple Records holds the trademark for Apple in the music biz and Apple Computers holds the trademark for computers. Can The Beatles sue Apple computer for Apple.com because their label trademarked Apple before the computer company did?
Ajax is a footbal club, a cleaning liquid and a brand of fire extinguishers. So who has the rights to ajax.com? Is it the most monied trademark holder or the oldest one?
Who won? (Score:1)
And then in the end it says:
This means that they AREN'T going to change the domain ownership just because this guy has trademarked "Referee".
Redesign the domain name system. (Score:1)
I think that a complete reallocation system, with the following features would be a Good Thing (TM).
Each country has a TLD. Only a resident/ company of that country may register in that TLD. [Stops the silly
Under each country is a special limited set of second level domains reserved for:
trademarks
company names
other areas where a unique name is important [authors, pop groups].
Disputes for the above domains are settled in the courts of the TLD country.
All other domain names are allocated on a first come first served basis. Trademark and naming disputes are avoided by specifically stating that all other domains have nothing in common with registered companies or trademarks.
Any web site may only have one domain name. (incidentally, this rule limits domain name camping).
International TLDs exist for organisations, but to qualify for such a domain, membership in over 30 countries must be demonstrated.
Suggestions....
The real bullshit... (Score:1)
Not only that, but after eReferee changed its name to officiating.com, Referee magazine wants an injuction against them to prevent them from operating. What a bunch of assholes.
Re:Seems fair enough (Score:1)
There has to be a risk of confusion. For example, MacDonalds construction and McDonalds burgers have no risk of confusion.
Basically if you are in widely different industries, it's ok. In this case, however, both products are magazines, so confusion is likely.
Jurisdiction (Score:5)
What do we have here. ICANN came to a decision in arbitration in favor of the Respondent Planet Ref Inc. Referee Enterprises Inc. didn't like the outcome of arbitration so they went whining to a judge who overturned ICANN's decision.
So what kind of precedence does this set? This, in effect, tells anyone who doesn't like ICANN's decisions regarding domain disputes to go ahead and take it to court anyway.
I thought one of the purposes of ICANN was to keep this kind of stuff out of the courts.
Fair enough if... (Score:1)
Does that mean that these guys [bay.com] can sue these guys [ebay.com] ? AFAIK, this is the same issue, sticking an 'e' on the front. ;)
Grief! If we'd done the same with other industry prefixes like inter-, micro- or tele- we'd be stuffed. Now we get sued over 'e', 'i' and that stupid '@' symbol...
Actually, Nike was the Greek goddess of victory; where are her lawyers then? Defamation of character "Sirs, I believe my name is being tainted by being associated by a company that makes shoes...". It all comes down to how big your comapny is nowadays, doesn't it? Corporateness sucks!
Re:Seems fair enough (Score:2)
The one who got there first. However, if one of the other Ajaxes go to this judge, then they will likely be able to wrest the domain from the legitimate owner...
Down that path lies madness. On the other hand, the road to hell is paved with melting snowballs.
The court ruling came after the arbitration.. (Score:1)
You had me up to... (Score:2)
...the part where the ruling indicates the company may not use the term referee in the directory structure.
What if a different company wants to sale referee uniforms and had the term referee in the path name. With this ruling the owners of "Referee" could go after them.
In this situation it is not a "tort of passing off".
Re:Redesign the domain name system. (Score:1)
All other domain names are allocated on a first come first served basis. Trademark and naming disputes are avoided by specifically stating that all other domains have nothing in common with registered companies or trademarks.
Well we do have a similar set-up to this in the UK. Except that it doesn't work. We have .ltd.uk and plc.uk that can only be registered by companies who trade under the name (a limited or public company) that they register. We then have the .co.uk which is a free for all. It seems though that no one is interested in the ltd.uk and the plc.uk which is why you don't see them around.
Also, many countries do in fact require that you have an address in their country before registering one of their domains. And it would be much better if all the countries did that. Then the Cocos Islands wouldn't have so many thousand domains registered for their 700 citizens.
Since when did Wisconsin own the Internet? (Score:3)
Re:They sort of have a point (Score:1)
Re:Seems fair enough (Score:1)
Re:Seems fair enough (Score:3)
Well, I can possibly see revoking the domain name, but the complete banning of the word "referee" from URLs is way over the top. The physical world equivalent is that you not only cannot use the word "Referee" in your magazine title, you can't use it in article titles or indices.
It's perilously close to giving trademark holders absolute right to the use of a common word in their sphere of business.
Re:If they can do that, then i'm doing this (Score:1)
Good point! (Score:2)
Re:Seems fair enough (Score:5)
A preliminary injunction has been issued which prevents RightSports from using its eReferee.com domain name and logo. The injunction also prevents RightSports from developing websites using other domain names that it owns. In short, RightSports is prohibited from any domain containing the word "Referee."
They also list about 40 other domain names that their partent company, RightSports, owns, that they are now forbidden to use, such as referee101.org, refereebooks.com, vollyballreferee.com, etc.
Now please tell me you honestly believe that each and every one of these sites is, "likely to cause confusion or mistakes or to deceive the public" concerning Referee Magazine. It's a load of BS. And here we have main reason why domain name lawsuits like this are bad. Basically, because of some short-sighted judge, Referee Magazine now owns the word referee, at least as it pertains to the internet.
Think this sort of thing would have been allowed to happen in the magazine publishing world? "Oh, gee, sorry, you can't publish any magazine with 'Referee' in the title in any form, we own that word." Or the television industry? "Nope, sorry, you can't create a TV show called The X-Files, The Rockford Files already owns the word 'Files'."
It's one thing if a company is protecting a brand name in this manner, i.e. Coca Cola or Disney. But referee is a common, public domain word. Referee Magazine didn't invent the word, they don't have any more right to the word then anyone else.
Referee.com in corporate bed w/ Sports Illustrated (Score:2)
---
Why does this deserve our attention? (Score:1)
First, the silly trademark involved. I'm not a lawyer, but trademarking dictionary words seems weak to me, especially when the word is a description of the service they provide!
For instance, everybody here agrees that Apple Computer has a legitimate trademark for Apple, even though it is a common word. But if Apple had just called itself "A Computer Company", would they have the trademark on "Computer", which "Computer Shopper" magazine would infringe on? I think not, although my (non-lawyerly) opinion is worthless. This case is similar. If Referee Magazine wanted to not be confused with every other Referee-oriented business, they should not have chosen a generic name!
Second, the US Federal Courts just sang a long rendition of "You're Not The Boss Of Me Now" to ICANN, utterly rejecting their authority over domain names. If this stands, then who actually holds jurisdiction over domain names? I nominate Taco.
The /. effect (Score:1)
mdougherty@referee.com
And let them know of our concern about this. If they threaten legal action against a boycott, for crying out loud, they are obviously out of touch with the real world.
We just need to help them see the truth.
Re:Seems fair enough (Score:1)
IANAL...BUT... I can see a significant problem here, in that it would seem the judge's ruling was way too broad. The magazine 'Referee' is a generic term, about/for 'referee's'. While there may be some confusion between their name and ereferee.com to require some consideration, it seems completely inappropriate to ban any use of the term 'referee' in their name, description, or index. An analogy would be to say that becuase someone like Computer World might have a trademake, that nobody else would ever be able to use the word 'Computer' in the name of a publication about computers. I can't believe this wouldn't be overturned in appeal. I can't believe the judge wouldn't be admonished, but then again, I don't expect that to happen. The only word I know that WOULD be precluded in a similar circumstance is 'Olympics', and THAT is only because of specific legislation dealing with that word only. I have a problem with the logo confict as well, but this judge seems so far off the mark that it wouldn't even be worth discussing. (But I believe the referee organzations themselves would have prior use of white stripes and whilstles.. and if they publish so much as a newsletter, they out to tell referee magazine to start paying the royalties.)
Re:Strong medecine needed for lawyers. Like arseni (Score:2)
Re:Strong medecine needed for lawyers. Like arseni (Score:3)
You mean like banding birds? Do Mounties really set up big nets to catch Native Americans, put a metal band around their ankle, and then let them go free again? And I thought Canadians were liberal... ;)
Sorry, I've been awake for too long.
Re:They sort of have a point (Score:3)
As long as eReferee.com has a prominent message saying "We are in no way affiliated with Referee Magazine, etc, etc" all is good. Seems like most companies come up with solutions like this.
Heck - I used to work for NORTEL when it was Northern Telecom and remember when they switched names. Some small outfit named Ortel in CA sued saying it was confusing. The result? NORTEL was forced to put "Nortel Networks" under the NORTEL name in small print on all sings, publications, etc.
Not a huge deal - simple enough and it avoids confusion. I wish others could do the smart thing istead of the 'sue for profit' thing :)
--
Re:Seems fair enough (Score:1)
Huh? eReferee is a website and Referee Magazine is a magazine. I realize that both are news sources, but how can you say that their both magazines? Is /. a magazine?
Web sites and magazine are vastly different things. A magazine requires a physical distribution network, printing presses, layout people, etc... A web site requires a server, a decent internet connection, network admins, etc... They may both be sources of information, but would eHistory.com infrige on The History Channel?
-sk
Re:Jurisdiction (Score:3)
If ICANN's arbitration is going to have any teeth, then they are going to have to add a step to domain registration, where the domain holder signs an agreement that they will abide by arbitrators' decisions.
Whether this is a good idea or not, depends on who you trust more: ICANN's arbitration process, or the legal system.
---
Re:Quality of judicial decisions (Score:1)
--
Re:Seems fair enough (Score:1)
They (dah mag) might stand a chance if they held a portal site directed to all kinds of referees.
If they were clever they'd ask eReferee to put a link on their home page pointing to theirs (and possibly vice versa). That way you theoretically double the possible visitors while still sporting that scarce common-sense attitude.
But lawyers and common sense probably don't match.
What about Windows(tm) (Score:1)
Value of name (Score:2)
We take the concept of a first+last name as an immutable part of our identities. It becomes a label which identifies us, but says nothing else about us. You cannot tell anything about a person from their "real" name.
Its possible that the "net" culture is changing this. Alot of people new to things such as email, unix usernames, etc, tend to use a derivative of their realname. However, Ive noticed that my younger brothers have no artificial attachments.
They go through identities roughshod, having no overwhelming attachment to any of them, but giving each a little life of its own. Ive noticed them even change their mannerisms to match the personae they take on.
This also reminds me of my favorite dialog from the matrix- "my name is neo". He wasnt lieing- a name you pick for yourself is more real than one assigned to you.
As for the trademark problem: It could be fixed relatively easily. Simply setup a national or global name registry of non-case sensitive, alphabetic strings. If you try to gain a name that matches another exactly you will be denied. If you are so much as one letter off- you are granted the string.
Logo's might be a bit more subjective though. A way to make it objective would be to require that the company string be near or in the logo.
Ass Raped Monkey (Score:2)
Gene Pool pollution (Score:2)
You know what this means:
1) opportunities for people who like to post satire and political speech sites like "stupidreferee.com". (Go Team Go!)
2) Tremendous headaches for the public officers and reporters of Referee Magazine [referee.com] with all of the people who like to telephone, mail, or email folks like that. Although their contact information page is minimal, they do have an 800 number for subsriptions.
Just be polite to the Customer Service folks (we have all been through tech support hell), and call from a payphone.
Referee Magazine is owned by Referee Enterprises, of Racine, Wisconsin.
Their phone number is public, and very easy to find.
Re:Jurisdiction (Score:1)
And I have my doubts like you whether that would be a Good Thing(tm).
I would be interested to know if the arbitration decision was even presented to the judge. I would hope the Respondent's attorney would be clueful enough to do that. If he did, then why didn't the judge say "This has already been settled in arbitration. Dismissed."?
Crap! I was going to get "ecocacola.com"! (Score:1)
Idiots (Score:1)
Only if they're complete morons, or have been living in a cave for the past five years. Hello? WIPO? WTO? Ever read The Register [theregister.co.uk] ?
--
If the good lord had meant me to live in Los Angeles
Re:Seems fair enough (Score:2)
1st, "Referee" is a word, not some made-up product name. If you use a word in the english language as part of your company/product name, you risk branding confusion. You can not/should not be able to copyright an english word. (now a french word, that's another story!)
2nd, the Internet brings global economy. If you want to play global, you have to accept the fact that it will be much harder to establish your unique presence. Who's to say who thought up of a name (or idea) "first"? Ladies and gentlemen, we have to share. Your ideas are generally not unique, and someone's probably doing what you're doing somewhere else - which doesn't mean that they stole your idea/trademark etc.
Read the article - scary stuff (Score:5)
Re:Here we go again (Score:2)
However, I think I recall (aka I'm too lazy to do any research right now) a provision of the Sherman AntiTrust Act that stated that advocating a boycott of a competitor was considered an unfair business practice. I believe it is possible that Referee Magazine could use that clause (or even some case law out there) to go after eReferee.com for "allegedly" sponsoring a boycott.
The problem with that stance may be that the two are not competitors (may be irrelevant) and it sounds like eReferee has nothing to do with sponsoring this boycott. However, to flip it around again Referee Magazine could argue, and depending on the judge they get, that eReferee, by allowing a discussion of a boycott on their forums is in fact sponsoring the boycott implicitly.
Or I could be talking out my ass.
Re:Seems fair enough (Score:2)
magazine (mg-zn, mg-zn) n.
A periodical containing a collection of articles, stories, pictures, or other features.
periodical (pr-d-kl) adj.
1. Periodic.
2. a. Published at regular intervals of more than one day.
2. b. Of or relating to a publication issued at such intervals.
So, yes, they're both magazines. One is a print magazine, the other is an online magazine. 60 Minutes is a television magazine. They're all the same basic thing, just packaged differently.
Re:I Made the Mistake of Reading the Arbitration 1 (Score:1)
-Puk
Re:Great business idea (Score:1)
Re:The real bullshit... (Score:1)
Wouldn't that be even more confusing? Click on your bookmark or hyperlink to eReferee.com and get a 404. I'd assume that eReferee.com had gone belly up, just like so many other sites. That seems overly punitive. Not only does eReferee lose it's domain, but Referee Mag wants them to lose their current user base.
-sk
Levels of wrong (Score:1)
Second, the fact that Right Sports can't even use the word referee as a directory name is so blatantly horrible I can't find the words.
Lastly, Referee wants institute a fine, for redirecting people from ereferee.com to officiating.com. Basically, they want Right Sports to be fined for making use of a domain name that they still own. All they are doing is address redirection, like if a company moves to a new building, and has their mail forwarded.
Ok, this is offtopic but I can't take it anymore! (Score:1)
sharkticon wrote:
Where's this USia? The proper name of the country I think you're referring to is "The United States of America," and is sometimes referred to as the "USA" or "America." I also happen to like "The United States," although that might be ambiguous.Also, "USA" is not pronounced as a word, it's /YOO-ESS-AY/.
Furthermore, if you intended to use "USia" as you would use "Asia," remember that there are several other countries in North America. Canada and Mexico, for instance. As far as I know, they're still independent, soveriegn nations
Furthermore, in case in the future you want to write a plural for the word "box," let me remind you that it's "boxes" and not "boxen." Just because there's an animal with a name that rhymes and has a wierd plural form doesn't mean that all words that end in X have plurals formed that way. Saying "boxen" just makes you look uneducated.
I admit that sometimes I say "England" when I mean "United Kingdom," but the part of the UK that I'm talking about when I say that is England. I just forget that I might be talking about Scotland, Ireland, the Falkland Islands and other places as well.
Re:Are You Sure eReferee Lost? (Score:2)
Did anybody notice... (Score:1)
Re:Quality of judicial decisions (Score:1)
Re:Ok, this is offtopic but I can't take it anymor (Score:1)
Where's this USia? The proper name of the country I think you're referring to is "The United States of America," and is sometimes referred to as the "USA" or "America." I also happen to like "The United States," although that might be ambiguous.
America is actually a continent I think you'll find. Hence it is a collective term embracing the nations within it - Canada, Mexico, USia, Brazil, Argentina and so on. These are all American countries.
Furthermore, if you intended to use "USia" as you would use "Asia," remember that there are several other countries in North America. Canada and Mexico, for instance. As far as I know, they're still independent, soveriegn nations.
No because Asia is a continent, USia is a country, so they're not equivalent at all.
Saying "boxen" just makes you look uneducated.
True. Where did I say boxen?
Not sure that's a good idea (Score:1)
Didn't you notice? (Score:2)
Going on means going far
Going far means returning
Something we can about this: slashdotreferee.org (Score:1)
Re:Read the article - scary stuff (Score:2)
This won't survive an appeal (Score:1)
Whether or not the names are similar is debatable, but it looks like a pretty blatant land-grab by Referee magazine. Given that both companies serve the same small market, I'm not surprised that their mutual customers are outraged by this and threatening a boycott. RightSports is providing much more value at a lower price, so Referee magazine is far more likely to alienate its own customers than to turn them against RightSports. Hopefully, this will eventually turn into a case study in why not to pull this kind of crap.
I can go to dictionary.com too... (Score:2)
1. To prepare and issue (printed material) for public distribution or sale.
2. To bring to the public attention; announce.
Despite FrontPage's nifty "Publish" command, I'd submit that a web site isn't published, it's uploaded.
For all the talk of "e-magazines" there is a vast difference between a web site and a magazine, and for that matter, a television magazine. That they're packaged differently by definition makes them different.
Re:Referee.com in corporate bed w/ Sports Illustra (Score:4)
Here is the contact info:
Amy Stober, Publicist
CNN/Sports Illustrated & CNNSI.com Public/Media Relations
Phone: (404) 827-5538
Fax: (404) 588-2057
amy.stober@turner.com [mailto]
Amy Sasser, Publicist
CNN/Sports Illustrated & CNNSI.com Public/Media Relations
Phone: (404) 827-5021
Fax: (404) 588-2057
amy.sasser@turner.com [mailto]
letters@si.timeinc.com [mailto]
cnnsi@cnnsi.com [mailto]
Re:Since when did Wisconsin own the Internet? (Score:3)
Re:What about Windows(tm) (Score:2)
Re:Seems fair enough (Score:2)
I guess the good news is they just saved themselves over a grand a year in renewals...
Name ownership aside, which I do in fact understand, I think people are getting a little too excited about this stuff. It isn't like referee in the name is going to make a lick of difference. Want proof. Look at some of the largest traffic sites in their respective fields, slashdot, yahoo, amazon. WTF do any of those have to do with what the site does?
The referee mag people should get over it, but so should rightsports. These battles don't matter. To paraphrase Cosmo, "It's all about the content"
--
Slashdot effect (Score:2)
Re:Gene Pool pollution (Score:2)
But first check whether that payphone doesn't have a hidden camera... A couple of weeks back, a group of students, wanting some extra days off phoned in a bomb threat to their school. Police took the threats very seriously... and eventually found the prankster by tracing the call to the payphone, and then viewing the phone-booth's video footage... Big Brother is watching you!
Re:The system is broken (Score:2)
P(2h)+ P(2t)=P(h+t)
Which is to say that, given two coin tosses, your odds of splitting the results is the same as your odds of having the same result twice.
Re:Seems fair enough (Score:3)
yes. Sometime (?late last year?) there was a suit filed by the publishers of Entrepenuer magazine to shut down new magazines with names like Black Entrepenuer and Women Entrepenuers. Big companies step on little companies all the time, but /. only notices it with web addresses.
Kahuna Burger
Re:I can go to dictionary.com too... (Score:3)
periodical (pr-d-kl) adj.
1. Periodic.
2. a. Published at regular intervals of more than one day.
Did you understand that phrase "more than one day?"
and secondly...
publish (pub' lish) v.
1. To prepare and issue (printed material) for public distribution or sale.
2. To bring to the public attention; announce.
So now that you've both used words to completely unprove your point, can we just say that wasting energy over your differences in rhetoric is just plain stupid? Considering this is a story about the dangers and consequences of misappropriated words, would you both consider ending this pathetic thread?
I'm so disappointed in referee.com (Score:2)
So, since they seem to be so eager to sue people, I registered the domain www.boycott-referee-magazine.org and called them back, spoke to the same person (Bob Still, their PR guy), but, alas, he declined my generous offer to let them sue me. Damn. I really would have liked them to fly from Wisconsin to mix it up in court. Oh well.
Stop blaming lawyers (Score:2)
Lawyers are *required* to advocate on behalf of their clients --- it's grounds for malpractice if they don't --- and I'm glad they are. When I'm dealing with our legal system I sure want an expert working my side, navigating me through the system and doing everything they can to help me.
The problem here is not the lawyers, it's the arrogance of a company and a legal system that's far from perfect. eReferee had lawyers too. The question is why did the judge agree with the lawyers for Referee magazine.
Re:Seems fair enough (Score:2)
Sorry, I heard the report on my local NPR station one day at work, but I have a terrible memory for certain details (like dates or if they were quoting another news source).
Kahuna Burger
Re:The system is broken (Score:2)
You stand a better chance of getting one head and one tail than anything else.
Re-parse. He's saying that (the chance of 2 heads or 2 tails) = (chance of 1 head and 1 tail). And he's quite correct. 2/4 = 2/4.
To look at it another way: Remember, he's talking about flipping a penny twice. After you flip it the first time and note the outcome, you then have a 50% chance of matching it with the second flip.
Re:Ok, this is offtopic but I can't take it anymor (Score:2)
Think harder. No map or atlas shows a continent named "America".
"America", on the other hand, is the universally-understood short name for "The United States of America", just as "Germany" is the universally-understood short name for "The Federal Republic of Germany".
I will join your self-righteous quest to rename America when you have joined mine to address the following egregious geoappelational injustices:
I would go on but the unfairness of it all reduces me to a sputtering rage.
I do hope that I can count on your support in consistently and equitably addressing all these horrific assaults against nomenclatural integrity worldwide. By your evident zeal I believe that I can.
Yeah? Which country is that?
Re:Strong medecine needed for lawyers. Like arseni (Score:2)
P.S. Indian comes from "in dios" or "under god". Not from the fact that Columbus thought he landed in India (Which was not even called India then). White People thought they had found heaven... Maybe that's why God makes them suffer to get in.
Re:I can go to dictionary.com too... (Score:2)
If you think that a usage has to satisfy all rather than any of the meanings supplied by a dictionary, you're going to have a hard time using a whole lot of words.
Let's take 'cleave'.
Okay, now let's see you use that in a sentence.
Re:Redesign the domain name system. (Score:2)
If I may pry, why do you care about the citizen-to-domain ratio of Cocos and Keeling Islands?
Re:Seems fair enough (Score:2)
It's called passing off - where a product or company is confusingly similar to another company, such that consumers might be misled, the tort of passing off is committed.
The problem is that the law and courts take a very naieve view of small namespaces. Any programmer can tell you that when trying to refer to information without using the entire body of information (often a hash table), there is always a design tradeoff between the size of the hash keys and the number of hash collisions.
Unless we want to start seeing URLs like www.erefereemagazinenottobeconfusedwithrefereemaga zine.com, www.informationpertainanttothefineartofofficiating atsporteventsnotbythepeoplewhoproduceinformationco ncerningthefineartofofficiatingatsportevents.com or even hsdsshskkysdkshjfdkhisiwouewpqndoapwapaspjcvwpo.co m (which will no doubt be sued by jfdkhisiwouewpqndoapwapaspjcvwpohsdsshskkysdksh.ne t) we will simply have to define an acceptable collision rate above 0 or require more than a simple similarity of names to define infringement.
The above is especially true with descriptive names. There are only so many ways to describe something with any sort of accuracy. For example, Referee is a very generic term (pretty much describing any official of any sport). Referee Magazine would also be a generic term (naturally describiong any magazine targeted to the profession of refereeing).
Another alternative would be to refuse to consider any word from any natural language to be tradmarkable. That doesn't strike me as being very palatable. There is a definate value to companies and consumers in being able to determine what a company does based on it's name.
None of the drawbacks would be so bad if there were some way to get an affordable and definitive ruling from the start rather than facing the prospect of being dragged into a ruinously expensive litigation after the fact. Even successfully registering a trademark does not protect you from trademark litigation (it helps you once you are in court, but only if you can afford court in the first place). It seems that every law that could protect you from such litigation has one or more weasel clauses that effectively invalidate it's protection, like you're not infringing if you're in a different line of business UNLESS THE MAK IS "FAMOUS". It then goes on to totally fail to provide a definitive test of "FAMOUS".
What defines sufficiantly distinct? No match in a soundex search? (no) X number os sylables are different? (no) Not a business at all? (no). All of those things are good indicators, but none are definitive.
If that's not enough, all of the words in the laws have 'legal' definitions which may or may not bear any resemblance to the definition in Webster's. Thus, in the legal system, the Kinks' song may take on almost literal meaning (Left is right, Black is white, back to front....)
In all of the legal principals out there, the most obviously important questions go unanswered: "How can we justly hold a person accountable for a body of laws that no person can ever fully understand or remember?" and "How can there be justice for all when much of the population cannot afford the process that is meant to yield justice?".
Consider: Those among us who have dedicated their lives to understanding the law (lawyers, judges, and legislators) cannot necessarily keep themselves on the right side of the law (in spite of a desire to be lawful citizens). What chance do the rest of us have?
Re:What about Windows(tm) (Score:2)