COMM400 Case Study #2 Abstract I chose the case of New Kids on the Block v. News America Publishing, Inc. This case involves issues of the Lanham Trademark Act of 1946, trademark infringement, and the restraints that can legally be enforced if the trademark’s owner claims it has been used inappropriately. Although the First Amendment protects unauthorized trademark usage in comedic, parodied or critical usage situations, it does not guarantee that trademark usage will never be used without the owner’s consent, especially for the purpose of newsgathering. The core issue in this case is whether or not trademark infringement actually happened. In order for the court to determine whether or not a trademark has been infringed, considerations such as the “strength of marks, the similarity in appearance of the products, the meaning of the marks, the kinds of goods in question,, and the intention of defendant using the mark” must be considered (2012).
“Technology leadership is not defined by patents, which history has repeatedly shown to be small protection indeed against a determined competitor, but rather by the ability of a company to attract and motivate the world’s most talented engineers. We believe that applying the open source philosophy to our patents will strengthen rather than diminish Tesla’s position in this regard.” (Tesla Motors) After reading this article, I honestly am blown away by the amount of foresight and bravery that Tesla is demonstrating in order to do what they think will better everyone, not just themselves. It is the finest act of unselfishness in a long time. Ironically, this has a lot of similarity to the Patagonia case. Tesla is looking to better everyone rather than solely focusing on themselves.
If it were not for the protection of patents, big companies, with their robust capacity, would surpass the small business entrepreneurs in speed and cost of production and thereafter suppress them completely. However, the excludability that patents impose on non owners of the inventions does not see capacity. This helps small business entrepreneurs to practice their own inventions while big companies remain hands-tied. ii) Revenue from licenses, sale or infringement. Licensing ones technology to others is another good way of making money.
This makes his argument that the EU will be disconcerting for the US. Basically, as the GE- Honeywell merger story illustrates, the EU’s power comes from its ability to meticulously regulate all business intending to benefit from the huge regional market. Basically, if any company wants to profit, it has no choice but to comply. It seems that Reid avoids this whole issue because there is little evidence in support of a Europe that has sound economic ideals upon which to build
Everyone is looking to develop the next “Big Thing”. My question has always been and will always be, if you can develop these devices, why can’t you make sure that the threats and/or vulnerabilities are addressed. I can’t believe that they are not known to be there when their product is made available. I believe that it is all about their profit if their product is marketed first instead of making sure that they are putting out a product that can reasonably provide consumers a better sense of protection when it is used to possibly relay their confidential information. I have no illusions that any product is fail-safe or perfect but I think these companies that develop these products should bear some responsibility for their products.
The deception about philosophical questions such as this one, is that there is no real scientific answer, so this makes debates on the topic very interesting. Both sides may have very good points in their arguments, but none would ever be better over the other. One would say that Darwinism is unexplainable, more so than creation. Darwinism, as it may explain what happened after all the life forms were created, it doesn’t explain how the life forms were created. Darwinism and Natural Selection, this is a more difficult topic to defend, because these people or beings have to be created in order to survive by adaptation.
Postmodernism IHAB HASSAN.. There is a lot of disagreement over the meaning of these terms but the bottom line is that postmodernism is against almost all the tenets of modernism. For example, modernism believes in rational thought while postmodernists believe everything is irrational. Modernism places a strong emphasis on science, whereas postmodernists are anti-scientific. Modernists believe that there are universal values and tend to be somewhat optimistic whereas postmodernists believe that only local values have importance.
This attitude reflects the commonly-held view amongst contemporary scientists that Freud's theories are unscientific. In this essay, I aim to argue that while Fish makes a valid point about Freud's use of the unconscious as a rhetorical device, to consider it as only a rhetorical device and to dismiss its importance as a scientific concept is not only unjustified, but also impractical in psychological theories of the mind. Freud's theories, I argue, are no less scientific than other theories in science. Before I assert my own arguments concerning this matter, I shall examine Fish's position in greater detail, in order to understand the extent of his claim. A rhetorical device, according to Fish, "is entirely constructed and stands without external support", and "that insofar as it has been installed at the centre of a structure of conviction it acquires the status of that which goes without saying and that against which nothing can be said".
About the most respectable aspect of the article is that the author does not attempt to make any ethical claims (ethos) against the largely correct observation that computers and digital information have indeed transformed much of human society. In fact, if anything, the ethical perspective might be among the strongest arguments against the author’s premise. The author’s first logical argument is that the notion of an “information age” is an inaccurate characterization simply because information can never replace “stuff.” Similarly, the author explicitly rejects what he claims are the three main arguments for the characterization of computers as giving rise to a new age by virtue of (1) their capacity to create, store, and deliver information; (2) to overcome geographic distance; and (3) to act intelligently. With respect to the first two, the author is clearly wrong, because the capacity of computers to create, store, and deliver information has revolutionized everything from advertising and supply chain management to social networking, dating, and warfare. With
However, as it grew larger, they were mainly responsible for the management of operations. As a result, cross-functional coordination became less important for functional managers. Development and marketing people, for example, often started pointing fingers at each other when customers’ demands evolved faster than the speed of product development. The last root cause is company’s compensation model where people were being majored by cost centers, and no one had accountability for the delay or failure of the new product. This compensation model was incongruent with the company’s business objective to increase its market share by launching advanced new products faster than any other competitors.