|
2 years ago ::
Oct 28, 2010 - 5:05PM
#16
|
|
|
Mr Zuckerberg can kiss my fat Roma backside. You don't get to copyright common terms in the dominant language (one reason I thought Fox's trademark on "fair and balanced" should have been denied).
He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God. ~ Proverbs 14:31Fiat justitia ruat caelum 
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 28, 2010 - 4:03PM
#15
|
|
|
This is the tip of the iceberg.
Do you know that you might not even own the genes in your own body?
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/01/60min...
"But the good news is that since the mapping of the human genome, science has made some giant leaps in detecting and treating inherited conditions.
By detecting those genes, for example the genes that predispose women to breast cancer, doctors can offer preemptive treatment. It sounds simple enough, but there's a catch: a woman may have that gene, but strange as it seems, it's really the property of a biotech company that has taken out a patent on it. "
The following quote from that article says something about what Facebook's efforts could do to turn the country backward:
"Here is the problem with having one company own the gene. There actually is better testing in countries that don't patent the genes. Because then, lots of different pathologists and laboratories can look at those genes. And some find mutations that the Myriad tests missed," Andrews explained.
And there is the issue of cost. In most of Europe and Canada, where Myriad's patents have been challenged or ignored, the test is given at a fraction of the $3,200 Myriad charges. So by playing these stupid ownership games, they are stifling innovation here in the US and driving it into foreign countries. Can't these idiots see that they're shooting themselves in the foot?
There are three sides to every story: your side, my side, and the truth.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 28, 2010 - 3:56PM
#14
|
|
|
I can see how trade dress would be a valid concern that could be validly enforced.
And I can see it to some extent with words, but I think with words it falls apart more quickly. They are not as static as trade dress, and they certainly existed before Facebook did.
I'm sure there were other facebooks before Zuckerberg's came along.
An agent's collection of its fashion and photographic models' head shots have LONG been called, "face books."
Democrats think the glass is half full.
Republicans think the glass is theirs.
Libertarians want to break the glass, because they think a conspiracy created it.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 28, 2010 - 3:53PM
#13
|
|
|
I can see how trade dress would be a valid concern that could be validly enforced. And I can see it to some extent with words, but I think with words it falls apart more quickly. They are not as static as trade dress, and they certainly existed before Facebook did. I'm sure there were other facebooks before Zuckerberg's came along.
There are three sides to every story: your side, my side, and the truth.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 28, 2010 - 12:38PM
#12
|
|
|
If you read the articles, I think he does have a valid beef with some of these businesses. It's not that they necessarily use the word 'face' or 'book', but the fact that they are so obviously playing off of the whole facebook theme. I mean, 'Faceporn'? 'Placebook'? Really?
Ces, There is a law on the books he can use to deal with situations like this. It is the Langham Act, and it deals with the question of "Trade Dress." Trade Dress is the term for how a business "looks and feels" to the public. One business cannot appropriate the goodwill of another through the use of misleading words, packaging, graphics, design, etc. The good news about pursuing things like this under the Langham Act is that the level of proof or infringement is not nearly as high and specific as in a pure "trademark" or "copyright" case.
Democrats think the glass is half full.
Republicans think the glass is theirs.
Libertarians want to break the glass, because they think a conspiracy created it.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 28, 2010 - 12:31PM
#11
|
|
|
If you read the articles, I think he does have a valid beef with some of these businesses. It's not that they necessarily use the word 'face' or 'book', but the fact that they are so obviously playing off of the whole facebook theme. I mean, 'Faceporn'? 'Placebook'? Really?
“Let go of your attachment to being right, and suddenly your mind is more open. You’re able to benefit from the unique viewpoints of others, without being crippled by your own judgment.” Ralph Marston
@ces_mom
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 28, 2010 - 12:26PM
#10
|
|
|
So, does that mean I can own the "F" word?
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 28, 2010 - 12:08PM
#9
|
|
|
I'd like to see time try to repossess it.
Democrats think the glass is half full.
Republicans think the glass is theirs.
Libertarians want to break the glass, because they think a conspiracy created it.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 28, 2010 - 11:57AM
#8
|
|
|
This is the tip of the iceberg. Do you know that you might not even own the genes in your own body? www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/01/60min... "But the good news is that since the mapping of the human genome, science has made some giant leaps in detecting and treating inherited conditions.
By detecting those genes, for example the genes that predispose women to breast cancer, doctors can offer preemptive treatment. It sounds simple enough, but there's a catch: a woman may have that gene, but strange as it seems, it's really the property of a biotech company that has taken out a patent on it. "
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Oct 28, 2010 - 9:32AM
#7
|
|
|
Obviously, when it comes to things like Copyrights, Patents, and such protections of what the law calls "Intellectual Property," wanting and getting are two different things. And successfully defending in court even still something else.
Democrats think the glass is half full.
Republicans think the glass is theirs.
Libertarians want to break the glass, because they think a conspiracy created it.
|
|
|
