Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
This shocked me. I thought that in that venue, it would have been the Bush sisters that got booed. The audience was respectfully polite to the Bushies.

Jeb Bush is well liked in Florida. He is married to a Mexican and he and his family and GWB all speak spanish. That shit plays well in the barrio.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
My post simply pointed out that the Bush campaign pissed off members of the IOC with the ad, and probably torpedoed the already-slim chance that NYC would get the 2012 Olympics. I also pointed out that it'd be impossible to prove one way or another, because the IOC didn't have an official position on the matter. I didn't mention copyright at all.

Well, THERE's a way to kill all discussion, RT.

We'd heard the epithets "dumb ass" and "dumb person" from notme, but I thought we were just getting started. Would this burst of creativity test the limits of her vocabulary?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
My post simply pointed out that the Bush campaign pissed off members of the IOC with the ad, and probably torpedoed the already-slim chance that NYC would get the 2012 Olympics. I also pointed out that it'd be impossible to prove one way or another, because the IOC didn't have an official position on the matter. I didn't mention copyright at all.

Yes you did and here is what you said:

IOC and Bush Post #2850

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
So there's this brouhaha over an ad that the bush campaign is running about the Olympics, citing the Iraqi and Afghanistan teams as two new* democracies. The United States Olympic Committee has asked the Bush campaign to pull the ad because they have rights to term "Olympics." (I think they've been fairly agressive in defending their copyright.) The campaign told them to fuck off.

This is why I attempted to educate you on the difference between protecting a mark and what copyrights protect (i.e., not marks). You were talking about the IOC protecting their copyrights.

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...598#post118598

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Well, THERE's a way to kill all discussion, RT.

We'd heard the epithets "dumb ass" and "dumb person" from notme, but I thought we were just getting started. Would this burst of creativity test the limits of her vocabulary?

I just go with the flow and take my cues from the rest of you. The name calling on this board wasn't started by me. Ty started it. I was the one, however, who introduced TITS to the PB.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Not Me
Wrongo, dumb ass. RT or whoever started this topic was talking about copyrights and the Bush ad and the IOC enforcing their copyrights to the footage.

What RT said. Besides that, we clearly had moved well beyond discussion of that topic, and you were mumbling to yourself in a corner somewhere.

Clearly you are not a tech lawyer. Copyrights are important to protecting software. Your pea brain may not understand software or the importance of it in our economy, but I will clue you in. There is alot of money in software.

Guess I touched a nerve. Sorry about dissing copyright law - it must be difficult to realize you've dedicated your career to a backwater area of IP law. If you don't realize what a joke copyright protection of software is, then I'm sorry for your clients.

Back on ignore you go.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Not Me
Yes you did and here is what you said:

IOC and Bush Post #2850

This is why I attempted to educate you on the difference between protecting a mark and what copyrights protect (i.e., not marks). You were talking about the IOC protecting their copyrights.

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...598#post118598

I was giving background on the USOC complaint and the Bush campaign's response. I pointed out that the USOC tends to be aggressive in copyright cases, and I could have cared less one way or another if it was a legally valid complaint/claim.

The copyright issue, which I know nothing about and really don't care about, was tangential at best from the original post.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I was giving background on the USOC complaint and the Bush campaign's response. I pointed out that the USOC tends to be aggressive in copyright cases, and I could have cared less one way or another if it was a legally valid complaint/claim.

The copyright issue, which I know nothing about and really don't care about, was tangential at best from the original post.

What about my getting cheated out of the Super Bowl pool? At long last, will you admit the Board administration was wrong?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I was giving background on the USOC complaint and the Bush campaign's response. I pointed out that the USOC tends to be aggressive in copyright cases, and I could have cared less one way or another if it was a legally valid complaint/claim.

WTF are you talking about? What copyrights does the IOC own? As I explained before, copyrights protect literary works and works of art. What copyrights does the IOC own?

If you are talking about film footage of the events, as I explained before, the copyrights to that are owned by the entity that filmed it, which wasn't the IOC it was NBC (or CBS or whichever won the bidding).

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
The copyright issue, which I know nothing about and really don't care about, was tangential at best from the original post.

Yes, it is quite clear that you know nothing about intellectual property. Whether it was tangential or not was irrelevant to SHP's post. He claimed no one was talking about copyrights but me. I said not true, RT brought it up in her post. Then you said, No I didn't. Then I said, here is your post.

Who gives a flying fuck if it was tangential in your mind. It was talked about and that was the point I was addressing in response to SHP's (aka dummy) insipid post.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
What about my getting cheated out of the Super Bowl pool? At long last, will you admit the Board administration was wrong?

Plated kicked me in the shins once too. Where is the complaint department around here?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Guess I touched a nerve. Sorry about dissing copyright law - it must be difficult to realize you've dedicated your career to a backwater area of IP law. If you don't realize what a joke copyright protection of software is, then I'm sorry for your clients.

What an idiot you are. First, I am a registered patent attorney and my primary workload involves patent litigation. Yeah, that's real backwater. No money at all in patent litigation.

Second, copyrights are huge in protectng software. That is how you go after people who pirate copies of your code. Moreover, unlike patent protection, certain violations of copyrights can involve criminal penalties. The threat of criminal penalties is a big stick deterrant to copyright infringement caused by selling pirated copies of software. On the civil side, you also see prevailing party's attorney's fees awarded routinely in copyright cases, which is not common in patent infringement cases, and which is another big stick deterrant.

Third, most aspects of your client's code aren't protected by patents.

So do you see now dummy? Patents are used primarily to protect your client against a competitor. Copyrights are used to protect your client against pirated copies of their software. Both copyrights and patents are important types of intellectual property in the software industry.

Fourth, you are embarassing yourself by trying to talk about an area of the law about which you are ignorant. At least RT admits she knows nothing about IP.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Me
What an idiot you are. First, I am a registered patent attorney and my primary workload involves patent litigation. Yeah, that's real backwater. No money at all in patent litigation.

Second, copyrights are huge in protectng software. That is how you go after people who pirate copies of your code. Moreover, unlike patent protection, certain violations of copyrights can involve criminal penalties. The threat of criminal penalties is a big stick deterrant to copyright infringement caused by selling pirated copies of software. On the civil side, you also see prevailing party's attorney's fees awarded routinely in copyright cases, which is not common in patent infringement cases, and which is another big stick deterrant.

Third, most aspects of your client's code aren't protected by patents.

So do you see now dummy? Patents are used primarily to protect your client against a competitor. Copyrights are used to protect your client against pirated copies of their software. Both copyrights and patents are important types of intellectual property in the software industry.

Fourth, you are embarassing yourself by trying to talk about an area of the law about which you are ignorant. At least RT admits she knows nothing about IP.

Bring in the mud, boys, sit back with a cold one, and enjoy . . .

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Bring in the mud, boys, sit back with a cold one, and enjoy . . .

Beg pardon?

Let's just say I recognize the symptoms from when Mrs. Panda was carrying around the littlest Panda. We still laugh about it.

[Say_hello_for_me]

>>The Miami Herald/St. Petersburg Times poll published on Monday gave the Republican president 48 percent support among registered voters in Florida, compared with 46 percent for Kerry. Bush's younger brother, Jeb, is Florida's governor. <<

From a Yahoo home-page story. I debated this with my brother last night. On the one hand, Kerry was picked over Dean by the party's leaders, right? Something like McAulliffe etc. Did Bubba and Hillary push this on us knowing how much America hates MA democrats? How in the world did you people end up with him, because it sure wasn't the masses (weren't they pulling for Dean?). Anyway, this race is over. It was really over before it began, once nobody in the Democratic leadership complained about the moveon stuff and the intense questioning over Bush's nat'l guard service. Even if you didn't know (at the time) that Kerry would end up as your nominee, you were handicapping him later.

Ya see, the Swiftboat Vets were waiting in the wings for him the whole time... What the fuck else did you people think would happen, knowing what this guy did after the war, not to mention the affiliation with the Kennedy-wing and state.

Maybe this is the one that got away from y'all. If you could just have kept Dean toned down a bit (the need for tax raises, how much he admires the French), it just seems like he could have slid into this election. This was truly your party's to lose, and your party's leadership has lost it for you.

Oh yeah, the debate last night was about who is really in charge of your party. Who really chose Kerry over Dean?

Sure it sounds like hyperbole, but where were the Clinton's those last few weeks? Its all their fault.

Hello

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Not Me
What an idiot you are. First, I am a registered patent attorney and my primary workload involves patent litigation. Yeah, that's real backwater. No money at all in patent litigation.

If there is one thing that I feel strongly about, it's that patent attorneys should stick to patents and stay the fuck away from trademark and copyright law.

Second, copyrights are huge in protectng software.

Correct, at least for consumer software and mass market business software. For custom stuff, not so much.

That is how you go after people who pirate copies of your code. Moreover, unlike patent protection, certain violations of copyrights can involve criminal penalties. The threat of criminal penalties is a big stick deterrant to copyright infringement caused by selling pirated copies of software.

Besides the recent actions of the Justice Department, the last reported criminal case of which I am aware in copyright is from the '70s and reads like a rejected script for Starsky and Hutch. It sounds good in the demand letters, but its a pretty empty threat.

On the civil side, you also see prevailing party's attorney's fees awarded routinely in copyright cases, which is not common in patent infringement cases, and which is another big stick deterrant.

While it varies a great deal by court, I wouldn't call the award of attorney's fees in copyright cases "routine." Interestingly, copyright is one of the few areas where the defendant may be able to collect attorney's fees in a case where a plaintiff would be statuatorily prohibited for the same (a plaintiff must show registration prior to infringment & an "exceptional case", a defendant must simply show an "exceptional case," i.e. plaintiff bad faith). Compare that with patent's treble damages (there's some serious money).

In the end, though, the Olympics question boils down to what can one throw up and stick, if you're the IOC and you're serious. Copyright in the telecasts, if your contract with the local broadcaster reserves to you those rights. Trademark violations for the terms Olympics and the five rings. False endorsement or false affliation or sponsorship (at any rate, one or more Lanham Act Sec 43 claims), perhaps, if the teams have given you their proxy (technically, on this last point, I'd think the various teams, or perhaps even the individuals portrayed, would have to be named as plaintiffs, but one could write a consolidated demand letter).

But the IOC isn't in the business of suing political parties. They want to be out of the political arena altogether. Which is kind of their point.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
This was truly your party's to lose, and your party's leadership has lost it for you.

I still give Kerry a 70% edge. I was at 80% last week. But the anti-Bush is still too strong. Dukakis might have a shot at it if he ran today.