Comments for IP/Internet/New Media Blog

Comment on Conflicting Reports: Google Denies NYT Claim of Imminent Google-Verizon Tiered Traffic Deal by Robert Link

Robert Link — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 16:43:26 +0000

Google and Verizon issued a statement yesterday, from which:

“Verizon-Google Legislative Framework Proposal

Google and Verizon have been working together to find ways to preserve the open Internet and the vibrant and innovative markets it supports, to protect consumers, and to promote continued investment in broadband access. With these goals in mind, together we offer a proposed open Internet framework for the consideration of policymakers and the public. ”

Full text at http://www.scribd.com/doc/35599242/Verizon-Google-Legislative-Framework-Proposal

Comment on Ninth Circuit Overturns Bratz Trial Rulings by phaedral

phaedral — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 10:02:41 +0000

Any suggestion this could go any higher? The 9th, after all, is notorious for being overturned.

Comment on Ninth Circuit Throws Bratz Curve Ball by IP/Internet/New Media Blog » Ninth Circuit Overturns Bratz Trial Rulings

IP/Internet/New Media Blog » Ninth Circuit Overturns Bratz Trial Rulings — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 15:25:45 +0000

[...] said Chief Judge Alex Kozinski said in the opinion. See our orgininal blog post on this topic here. Categories: Trademark Infringement Tags: Bratz, Mattel, MGA, trademark litigation [...]

Comment on 5th Circuit Soft on DMCA? by IP/Internet/New Media Blog » Librarian of Congress: Six Classes of Non-infringing Circumvention Defined

Mon, 26 Jul 2010 18:10:03 +0000

[...] fifth class would seem to bear on the 5th Circuit ruling mentioned in our previous post. (5) Computer programs protected by dongles that prevent access due to malfunction or damage and [...]

Comment on USPTO Sparks Hopes For Marijuana Trademark Registration Then Snuffs Them Out by phaedral

phaedral — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 02:55:36 +0000

An entire specialty, up in smoke. (Couldn’t resist…)

Comment on Not “Whose Browser?”, “Whose Terms?” by yuuabawah

yuuabawah — Sat, 12 Jun 2010 05:12:51 +0000

ALcOke fvrsnkpofodv, [url=http://mnfpeuspqsrc.com/]mnfpeuspqsrc[/url], [link=http://btdpfqgjkvbd.com/]btdpfqgjkvbd[/link], http://oeraclowlqeh.com/

Comment on Constitutionality Questioned in FTC Blog Endorsement Rules by Cheap Mbt Shoes

Cheap Mbt Shoes — Mon, 03 May 2010 14:01:32 +0000

Great journey and experience!

Comment on Ninth Circuit Throws Bratz Curve Ball by Lizzy Mersy

Lizzy Mersy — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 22:06:25 +0000

and my 2 daughters just can’t wait for the new bratz line up
and they won’t mind if my purse is empty (joke)
they just love the bratz!!!!

Comment on Ninth Circuit Throws Bratz Curve Ball by Lizzy Mersy

Lizzy Mersy — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 22:04:26 +0000

well, my daughter is ok with Barbie dolls and Moxie girlz and of course Bratz
but just to say less sexy stuff more friendly clothes.

Comment on 8th Annual Frey Lecture in Intellectual Property by galengentry

galengentry — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 22:16:05 +0000

William Patry, senior copyright counsel at Google and former professor of law at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, was this year’s Frey Lecture in Intellectual Property at Duke Law School. His talk is entitled “Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars: A Reply to Jack Valenti.”

Comment on Bilski v. Kappos Argued by Robert Link

Robert Link — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:22:56 +0000

Apparently from the oral argument (I haven’t had a chance to read it yet), attorney for Biliski says, ““But today the raw materials are just as likely to be information or electronic signals, and to simply root us in the industrial era because that’s what we knew I think would be wrong and contrary to the forward-looking aspect of patent law.””

I’ve talked about this error previously. Information is never a raw material, and this mistake is akin to the idea that image infringement in Second Life is “only virtual” on the assumption that Second Life is “a virtual world”.

Just a little epistemology goes a long way here.

On the other hand, if one has accepted the task of advocating a client’s interests, one might be forgiven proffering this kind of epistemologically unsound argument. Observers can only hope the Court is sufficiently sophisticated to see through them.

Comment on Internet Explorer Does Not Consider This A Domain by Robert Link

Robert Link — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:39:36 +0000

This issue has been resolved by moving the site to the new address, http://netlaw.robertlink.org

Comment on Internet Explorer Does Not Consider This A Domain by Robert Link

Robert Link — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 01:27:57 +0000

Hellekin,

Thanks for the information. The point, however, isn’t that the sub-domain fails to be standards compliant. The point is that IE is notoriously standards non-compliant, and that Firefox and Lynx both have no problem dealing with this, neither does apache, which serves the site. It’s really just a dumb IE quirk and an incredible nuisance.

Comment on Internet Explorer Does Not Consider This A Domain by Hellekin O. Wolf

Hellekin O. Wolf — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 20:42:42 +0000

RFC 1738, relative to Uniform Resource Locators, states:

The fully qualified domain name of a network host, or its IP
address as a set of four decimal digit groups separated by
“.”. Fully qualified domain names take the form as described
in Section 3.5 of RFC 1034 [13] and Section 2.1 of RFC 1123
[5]: a sequence of domain labels separated by “.”, each domain
label starting and ending with an alphanumerical character and
possibly also containing “-” characters. The rightmost domain
label will never start with a digit, though, which
syntactically distinguishes all domain names from the IP
addresses.

That means: no underscores. Your hostname should be changed to ip-net-new-media-blog

Comment on Not “Whose Browser?”, “Whose Terms?” by Robert Link

Robert Link — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 09:22:58 +0000

Another good article on this issue: Business Models That Require Restrictive Consumer Contracts for Success