The Orange XML button on the left hand of my blog allows you to subcribe to the RSS (really simple syndication) feed of this site, if you were to use a news reader program such as Feed Demon. News readers are good ideas.
According to the Wall Street Journal, MLB Advanced Media, the online divsion of Major League Baseball, will not sign deals with companies that use spyware to serve ads. The article defines spyware as software that once installed on the user’s machine, reports on the user’s activities so as to determine which ads to serve to the user’s computer.
No spyware logo from here.
Problems regarding protection of SHAOLIN TEMPLE trademark for Kung Fu, via chinaview.cn.
History of Kung Fu here.
Lyrics to “Kung Fu Fighting’ here.
Filmography of David Carradine here.
Filmography of Keith Carradine here.
HBO’s DEADWOOD site here.
Sixth Circuit: POWERZONE for Radio Shack’s ‘store-within-store’ is not confusingly similar to and has not caused actual dilution of AUTOZONE for auto part chain.
AutoZone v. Tandy, 01-6571 (6th Circuit June 29, 2004)
Fourth Circuit: Copyright owner’s claims against ISP for direct infringement dismissed, as ISP would have to commit volitional acts to be liable for direct, as opposed to indirect infringement.
CoStar v. LoopNet, 03-1991 (Fourth Circuit, June 21, 2004).
Federal Circuit: PATENTS.COM held to be merely descriptive of and not inherently registrable for software for tracking patents.
In re Oppedahl, 03-1525 (Fed Cir June 25, 2004) via Finnegan Henderson.
Olsen twins sue Acclaim over video game royalties, via Celebrity Justice (Celebrity Justice?).
International Society for Twin Studies here.
Artist Thomas Forsythe photographed BARBIE dolls to make an artistic point. Mattel sued him and lost. A District Court judge has now held that the parodic character of the work should have been clear to Mattel, whom he characterized as a ‘sophisticated entity with access to good legal rerpesentation.’ Accordingly, Mattel’s copyright claim was ‘objectively unreasonable,’ and its trademark, trade dress and dilution claims were ‘groundless and unreasonable.’ Defendant was awarded $1,584,089 in attorneys fees and $241,797 in costs.