ChemicalRascal

It really doesn’t have to be a “fact of life”, and it isn’t in many places, such as Australia and England – nations with very similar degrees of economic prosperity, and very similar cultures, to the USA.

Good stuff, Georgia. Especially with it being unanimous. Though given Trump’s demonstrated typical approach, I can’t imagine the rebuke from the court will prevent him from making similar attempts in the future.

Many jurisdictions would treat that as facilitating copyright infringement.

Well, her being a cop is self-evident, but let’s review the entire comment:

She’s a racist, classist noeliberal and a fucking cop (or close enough).

Her political career has been chock-full of attacking public institutions like schools, protecting white-collar crime which destroyed countless lives, protecting child molesters in the church, implementing policy against the poor, and protecting prison slavery. I’m not sure where exactly the confusion lies.

I would argue that, frankly, her being a neoliberal should be explained, for the sake of discussion, but her being racist and classist should be. The details of her career being “chock-full” of various acts should be coupled with specific citations to reporting of those acts. And so on.

I don’t like Harris, mind, but the comment being discussed could have established its evidence in a more convincing manner.

Having indefinite trademarks will mean we will eventually run out of names, as every name will eventually be taken over many years.

This, I think, is the core of the issue for you, correct?

That’s not how trademarks work. There are plenty of authors out there with the same name as other authors (like, literal authors, not in the general sense of creators of works). There are plenty of companies that have the same name as other companies, be that essentially the same or actually the same.

This ticks off the Joe example. Atari is a brand, that brand is IP, so that’s a separate issue. I’m not sure what you’re even trying to say about Atari there, though I’m pretty sure if the Atari trademark disappeared immediately on Atari’s collapse you’d just see another company start trading as Atari, which under your prescription would be legal, and the world would be functionally identical in relation to the Atari trademark.

As a software engineer, well, it would be remarkably difficult for my industry to pay its workers if copyright didn’t exist.

Hold up. What purpose, exactly, does having trademarks expire on the death of the author have? What do we gain from that?

Trademarks? Why…? All trademarks do is ensure consumers know who made a given product.

If I make cola, even if it’s the same as Coca-Cola, shouldn’t consumers be able to differentiate between my cola and Coca-Cola’s cola?

Hold up, it was originally supposed to be a trade show for journalists. It’s always been about the big corporations. They’ve always had a dominance over the event.

The problem was that E3 was seen by the public as something to desire access to, as being exclusive and so on. This drove the organising body to open it up to more general access. In doing so, the audience changed, so the content on display changed, and it became a shitty version of PAX.

And that’s what killed it, in turn.

The submersible that imploded near the Titanic wreck.