U. S Supreme Court considers dot com question

[Richard230]

Today the U.S. Supreme Court will be considering an interesting trademark case (and will be doing so via a public group telephone call). It will try to decide if adding the words "dot com" to a common word or phrase can be trademarked. The first example that came to mind, although not the one under consideration, is "motorcycle.com". If they rule in favor of the dot com guys, expect every word in the English dictionary to end up with "dot com" tacked on to its end and then be trademarked.

[OX-34]

What a waste of time.

The Supreme Court should spend time on reviewing the cases of falsely imprisoned victims of the corrupt USA judicial system. You know, guilty unless rich enough to prove innocence.

[notacop]

No innocent folks in the Oz jails?

[OX-34]

No innocent folks in the Oz jails?

I've yet to see the US Supreme Court get involved with the Australian jail system.

The Australian Supreme Court does not have a role to play in the innocence or not of Americans in American jails either.

Read, think, post.

[notacop]

I curious about the Aus members interest in the vagaries of American life. nothing better to do down under?
You want to investigate our court system but react to a suggestion the same may be true there.
Of course neither court system should have anything to do with the other.
Not sure how many Americans have a preoccupation with anything Australian other than cute Koalas and may some beer.
Some responses indicate a bit of a preoccupation with things North of the Equator.
I read, I thought I'se confused.

[OX-34]

I curious about the Aus members interest in the vagaries of American life. nothing better to do down under?
You want to investigate our court system but react to a suggestion the same may be true there.
Of course neither court system should have anything to do with the other.
Not sure how many Americans have a preoccupation with anything Australian other than cute Koalas and may some beer.
Some responses indicate a bit of a preoccupation with things North of the Equator.
I read, I thought I'se confused.

Oh, the reading...

The original post said that the US Supreme Court was going to spend time considering the right to trademark "dot com" and that the OP stated that as a result we should expect "dot com" to be tacked on to every word in the English dictionary. It's just a few posts above. Have a read.

Now, even if, where the OP wrote "expect every word IN the English dictionary" would have "dot com" tacked on he most likely meant 'expect every word FROM the English dictionary' to be trademarked, it remains that this is potentially a far-reaching ruling. Agree?

Crikey I feel compelled to ask you notacop, you do realise don't you that English is the language we speak in Oz? Do you also realise that on occasion the bullyboy US likes to apply its trademarks in Oz? Whilst that is usually done by bottom-dwelling members of the US law fraternity it remains a practice. I'll give just one example. The word "Ugg". In Australia for decades we have had the propensity to wear sheepskin boots. Heck, by golly even Pamela Anderson had a pair of such Aussie icon footwear back in the day. In Oz they were and are known as Ugg boots. (NZ too but we don't need to get the ANZACs rounded up for battle) Subsequent to the general usage of that term, someone in the US - yes, that same US you find north of the equator - decided to trademark the name. And enforce the trademark. The US deemed that a word used in Oz prior to the trademarking now was beholden to the trademarking in the US. Phuckers.

Now, with the world's highest incarcerated population*, the world's highest incarceration rate and the world's highest number of uncharged and unsentenced but yet still locked up population I'm just going to say it here: the US justice system is either extremely flawed or the US populace is unbelievably criminal. Both may co-exist of course - lucky you. Just a small proportion of an astoundingly large number means there be a whole heck of a lot of innocents and/or too poor to pay folk behind bars. Just try to deny that. Oops, that's math. Two school subjects in one day is a big ask, my bad. The third slipped under the radar and is called 'logic', but that don't feature on the skool kurriculam much these days.

You say that Americans are likely only in possession of a preoccupation with koalas and some beer. That is of little surprise to me, being outside the wall 'n all. The world gets it that, on average, the average American has no interest in, nor understanding of, nor quite frankly even a skerrick of knowledge of what happens outside the wall. That's ok. You can lead a horse to a book, but you can't make him read.

[Now just perhaps there are some Americans who are widely interested in world affairs I'll just throw you under the bus seeing that you made the koalas and beer claim. ]

However, that ignorance does not necessarily exist throughout the world. Many of us outside the wall are interested in what happens inside. The US and Australia have shared many things over the years and hopefully will continue to do so. We take an interest. Occasionally we are horrified, like now. Surely rather than ask if there is "nothing better to do down under", you might take a moment to reflect upon the content of the original post and try to honestly say that you think that your US Supreme Court currently has nothing better to do than consider this ridiculous trademarking of "dot com". Come on buddy, take the chip off you shoulder and read the words. Then think, then post whatever you like, but start with the reading, huh?

But I digress.

I'll tackle your idiotic jumping. The jumping that allows you to read one thing eg what the US Supreme court is doing (asserted by another), and inferring that I said I was going to investigate the system. I'll save you looking too far up above and letting the words blur and will instead post your words down here where they are handy: "You want to investigate our court system but react to a suggestion the same may be true there." I did not say I was planning on investigating. I did not react to the same being done here (cf where you wrote "there"). I did neither of those things that you so stridently assert. Mate, read just read.

You, sir, are FAKE NOOS. You, like the pumpkin head, read something, mix it up in your brain, then take a position that was neither based on what was written, nor evident in the facts. Fake news.

I still think your US Supreme court has better things to do. I'll comment on things north of the equator as I see fit and I challenge you to apologise for your mishmashing of what was written, what I wrote and what you crayon-wielder-like asked in your own inept way.

Have a little read. If I'm wrong, be specific and tell me where. If you were wrong, man up and say so.

ps this line of yours "Of course neither court system should have anything to do with the other." shows me that you have at least some capacity to read, understand, paraphrase and gosh golly agree with what was written. Touche



*https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2020.html

[WildWilly]

Peter and Nota: Knock it off or Daboo will move this to the "adult" section . . . . .

[Richard230]

You want adult Supreme Court issues? Right now the Supremes are discussing if The Donald's tax returns should be released to Congress or kept hidden and buried with him in his tomb.

[WildWilly]

Saw on the news tonight they might look at the hush money paid to Stormy Daniels. She should get hazardous duty pay.