It was the wrong thread

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Oh, if you want to take the question seriously, there really is no question. In Carlito's Way he played a caricature of himself. Scarface was something else, but not because he was so convincing as a Cuban.

But, my people refer to it merely as "Two".

Friends of mine just say "Michael" reverently, and they all nod knowingly.

[Penske 2.0]

Let em eat cake....lol!!!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

Let em eat cake....lol!!!

When they talk about senior management office size does it include private restroom? Also should I count my personal wetbar/conference room?

[LessinSF]

Hank, don't buy your competitor's name through Google AdWords.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Hank, don't buy your competitor's name through Google AdWords.

Link didn't work, but presumably you meant to link to something like this.

I know nothing about this area of law, but this doesn't seem like a good result. Moreover, I really don't see how there could be confusion (at least if that means the customer could reasonably think the buyer is the mark holder) because no one other than the buyer and google would even know that the "mark" was in use.

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

When they talk about senior management office size does it include private restroom? Also should I count my personal wetbar/conference room?

Depends on which survey you are accessing. When they interviewed me for CEO magazine, I included the private restroom, the sauna, the wetbar and my indoor putting green. Have to make sure the boys knows who's the bsd in da room.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

Link didn't work, but presumably you meant to link to something like this.

I know nothing about this area of law, but this doesn't seem like a good result. Moreover, I really don't see how there could be confusion (at least if that means the customer could reasonably think the buyer is the mark holder) because no one other than the buyer and google would even know that the "mark" was in use.

it's a very clean decision-

someone searches for Binder & Binder and a link pops up to D- it's unclear that it isn't Binder & Binder and there is evidence that D sought to increase the confusion. in fact the only reason D bought the thing is because it wants confusion-

I don't know what the last clause on your post means, but the customer used the mark Binder & Binder. em knows that's the firm it wants to consult with, and the ad-link confused em.

The Playboy (lots of early internet cases involve porn sites- go figure) v. Netscape case seems to give a way out for allowing a link, but only if the link makes clear it is not to the mark holder's (here Binder & Binder) page.


there is a great playboy case that involved the equivalent of our "white text" battle- a porn site had it's home page full of the word "playboy" hundreds of times but it wasn't visible to people as it was "white text." The D argued no one could see it- but the way search engines worked (at least then) was to count the number of hits on a page. so a search for "Playboy" would put the porn site above Playboy in the results. It's fascinating to think about the technology, and the consumer-psychology involved in the porn site's plan.

[Hank Chinaski]

JG Wentworth- I assume these commercial are national-

are there so many people with structured settlements that this is an effective use of commercial $$$?

how sleazy is this practice? I mean this is likely to fuck up some lives. yes?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

JG Wentworth- I assume these commercial are national-

are there so many people with structured settlements that this is an effective use of commercial $$$?

I always think the same thing.

how sleazy is this practice? I mean this is likely to fuck up some lives. yes?

I don't actually know, but have always assumed that the business model is based on financially raping their "customers" by significantly under-valuing the cash flows. I mean, it just has to be. Which I guess if you can pay 3 cents on the dollar, maybe you can afford some commercials.

[Hank Chinaski]

hitler raises some good points

[Cletus Miller]

Have Scalia/Ginsburg ever before been the only two dissenters?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

Have Scalia/Ginsburg ever before been the only two dissenters?

Sittin' in a tree.

If the word "Rick" wasn't testimonial, why was it relevant and therefore admissible? I think the fact a prosecutor wanted the jury to hear is is pretty fuckin' strong evidence that it was testimonial. Whadda joke.

It looks like the Court has confused all of its law about the good faith/intentionality of law enforcement under the warrant requirement with the Sixth Amendment. Next we'll have coerced confessions admitted on the basis that officers were acting in good faith.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

Sittin' in a tree.

If the word "Rick" wasn't testimonial, why was it relevant and therefore admissible? I think the fact a prosecutor wanted the jury to hear is is pretty fuckin' strong evidence that it was testimonial. Whadda joke.

It looks like the Court has confused all of its law about the good faith/intentionality of law enforcement under the warrant requirement with the Sixth Amendment. Next we'll have coerced confessions admitted on the basis that officers were acting in good faith.

You want some semi-related stupidity, this one (easiest single link I found) in Illinois is great. Get the legislature to pass a law allowing hearsay from someone who is missing and kinda presumed dead, yet no one has been charged with her murder, made to her pastor to be admitted in the trial for another, years earlier murder.

It's like a really, really bad movie, one that would star Tommy Lee Jones and Ashley Judd.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

Sittin' in a tree.

If the word "Rick" wasn't testimonial, why was it relevant and therefore admissible? I think the fact a prosecutor wanted the jury to hear is is pretty fuckin' strong evidence that it was testimonial. Whadda joke.

It looks like the Court has confused all of its law about the good faith/intentionality of law enforcement under the warrant requirement with the Sixth Amendment. Next we'll have coerced confessions admitted on the basis that officers were acting in good faith.

I enjoyed his dissent - http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-150.pdf

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

I enjoyed his dissent - http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-150.pdf

I was with him 100% until he defined "dystopian" in a footnote. I will NOT be condescended to, Nino.