09F9:1102:9D74:E35B:D841:56C5:6356:88C0

[tcpip]

First, culinary news. KFC challenges little English pub for holding a "Family Feast" (via ktwhoopi. I knew it! Cocktails are good for you (via wildilocks.

Last Sunday's AD&D game was a disaster. In our prelim scenario one PC wasted a conviniently placed "genie in a bottle" wish spell on their own advancement after a number of PCs had been level-drained from a wraith. Following this the DM run us through G1: Steading of the Hill Giant Chief, but changed the plot and setting in significant ways that simply made no sense at all. Fortunately tonight calisi will run the second session of Covenant, which is proving to be most engaging.

Went to Splodge! on Monday with caseopaya, severina_242, _zombiemonkey, recumbenteer and L. to see Logan's Run.Silly film, but a good way to spend an eve.

This Sunday the Unitarian Extension Movement is hosting a forum on climate change with Dr. Peter Cristoff from the Australian Conservation Foundation, Gavin McFadzean of the World Wildlife Fund and Dr. Michael O'Connell from the Alternative Technology Association.

Comments

[lederhosen.livejournal.com]

Trademarks only apply within specific contexts (IIRC the test is 'likelihood of confusion'). So for instance, "McDonald's Burger Shack" is probably violating a well-known company's trademarks, but "McDonald's Sewing Supplies" wouldn't be.

In this case, the trademark would only have applied to using purple in connection with chocolate - but last I heard, Cadbury had lost in court anyway, although they were appealing.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

It would seem that they were trying make a case for "acquired distinctiveness", which is pretty moot.

For intellectual property claims that will make your hair stand on end, check out the following:

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/tfisher/iphistory.pdf

Although there is good money in it...

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-56223451.html

[lederhosen.livejournal.com]

A while back, I learned of a company that had filed two patients (which I believe had been tested in court). Patent A covered widgets having material properties within a certain range, as measured by a certain process.

Patent B covered the measurement process.

So even if you just wanted to make sure you weren't infringing A, you had to license B...