homura1650 @ homura1650 @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

130

Joined

2 yr. ago

I had the good fortune of meeting a couple of board game nerds before getting into the hobby myself. They had a seperate insurance policy specifically for their games.

Facebook the product is still Facebook. The only name that changed was that of the company that owns Facebook, which makes sense as that holding company also runs other products like Instagram.

Google made a similar move in 2015 when it created Alphabet to hold the non Google parts of Google.

In both cases the renaming was on the coorporate side. They made no effort to loose the old trademark, and continue to operate under it today.

The only high profile case that comes to mind that is simmilar to Twitter is when Comcast rebranded itself as Xfinity in 2010. In that case, it worked because: A) Comcasts reputation was way worse than Twitters and B) people don't have that much of an option anyway. In the otherhand, the rebranding failed in the sense that everyone still knows them as Comcast.

My orthodontist had a teeth brushing station with disposable toothbrushes (that come pre-loaded with toothpaste). I've never seen that at a dentist though. Mine have always given out toothbrushes at the end of an appointment. Probably because otherwise people would keep using the same one for years.

And yet Jewish law considers birds to be meat despite having a completely different category for sky animal.

But if you direct people to forcibly take a kid to a camp that uses face punching as a "therapeutic" treatment, while endorsing said camp with your national platform...

Technically that might not be "direct" violence, but it is pretty direct indirect violence.

I want to see the ensuing trademark lawsuit from the owners of xvideo.com

"The United States is not in the business of interfering in other people's affairs"

"Since when Sir?"

A) Phyical books cost way more to buy than they do to print. You are mostly paying for the writing/editing.

B) Youtube is nor charging anywhere near "real" prices for their subscription. Renting movies on youtube is generally in the $3-$5 range, far cheaper than seeing a movie in a theater. The subscription gives you unlimited access to almost their entire library of videos and music. The only physical analouge is a library, but those only exist due to government funding and a quirk of copyright law that does not apply as well in the digital realm.

A single ticket to my local movie theater costs $16.50 for an adult ticket to a typical movie. That is already more expensive than a month of unlimited Youtube premium, even at the inflated price.

Video streaming is a consumable product. What model would you prefer. Ad supported is still available. A la carte is reasonable in theory, but doesn't seem like it would work well for a site like youtube (even though youtube does have some a-la-carte offerings such as movies)

We used to have a movie subscription service around here. It failed because it was essentially sellings dimes for nickels.

You can read their filing here: https://www.jnj.com/_document/janssen-lit?id=00000189-6a3c-daed-a5bd-fb7fc2a60000

Constitutional argument spelled out starting on paragraph 83:

82. The Program violates Janssen’s constitutional rights in at least three respects.

83. First, the Program will appropriate Janssen’s patented Xarelto® products for third-party use without providing adequate compensation, a clear physical taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

84. Second, the Program will violate the First Amendment by compelling Janssen to make false and misleading statements through the Manufacturer Agreement, including that the Program will involve “negotiating” a “fair” price for Xarelto® products.

85. Third, the Act would violate Janssen’s constitutional rights even if participation in the Program were voluntary (it is not), by impermissibly conditioning Janssen’s ability to participate in Medicare and Medicaid on Janssen’s relinquishing its speech and property rights.