Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SanFrancisco
The law and lawsuits are complex. Things are far more complicated than what you are talking about.
You are getting too agitated. Far be it for me to fan your flames.
See you.
P.s. If you want to think my ignoring you from here forward constitutes an admission that you are right, whatever.
|
Ah, what a wonderful excuse for avoiding the question.
I'm not agitated, I'm actually quite amused at your refusal to answer the direct question. Its really a rather simple question, you know.
And if my arguments and reasoning are "ridiculous" and "absurd" then I guess so was the opinion of the Judge in the Microsoft vs. Lindows case that you yourself cited earlier. Because the argument is identical - I'll refer to your earlier posting about the Judge's opinion on that one:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SanFrancisco
Microsoft sued an alternative OS called Lindows for trademark infringement saying among other things that Lindows confused the public into thinking that it was Windows related or a product sold by MS.
End result, MS settled for over $100 million because the Judge had indicated that he was inclined to rule that Windows was NOT a protectible name, nor was it a trademark. Rather than risk a judicial ruling or precedent that Windows could not be a trademark [too common a word], MS settled by paying money to the people it sued.
|
That's EXACTLY my argument in a nutshell, so I guess you feel the Judge in that one used "absurd" and "ridiculous" arguments and positions too. So maybe I should rephrase my opinion to say that I hope the Judge in this case is every bit as absurd and ridiculous as that Judge was, because I feel
both the word "windows" and the word "black" are "too common a word" to be protectible or able to be trademarked. I certainly hope RIM has familiarized themselves with this case, as it would certainly not be in their best interests to file a case and end up paying tens of millions of dollars to the defendent, huh?
So I'm not claiming that "I'm right" or "you're wrong", but yes, I'll take your
very pointed refusal to answer the simple question that I've asked multiple times as an indication that you didn't like the answer you'd have to give and would rather duck the question - so thanks.
In court, we could just have the Judge direct you to answer the question, but in the forums we'll just have to draw the conclusion from the refusal to address/answer. The prosecution rests.
