HN user
There's a bit of advocacy involved here-- the writer is trying to convince you that the sequence of events was so absurd as to be not "foreseeable". Other than that, I agree with you that it's a bit verbose; it's just how a lot of these judgments were written back then.
In case this helps anyone, I found that removing a Yubikey (i.e. with that contact sensor) seemed to reduce the number of times I opened my bag to find a Macbook Pro unexpectedly warm and with a drained battery.
"Dutch Roll" in context: it's one of the dynamic modes of a plane -- a bit like the "phugoid" (e.g. when your paper airplane repeatedly speeds downward, pitches up, stalls, and speeds downward again on its way to the ground).
In broad strokes, the dynamic modes can have natural frequencies -- in the same sense often used when speaking of resonance, transfer functions -- and there's a trade-off between (1) having low natural frequencies and (2) having a responsive control system.
I, too, suffered through this ordeal in the name of self-repair. The worst of it was having to, every now and then, file a slot into a tiny screw I'd stripped (#%!*) so I could continue with a flathead screwdriver.
Yahoo uses CoinMarketCap. Can't tell if new number is failover or overflow.
Was given the 8880 Super Car as a kid. Pretty sure it's the only reason I survived a vacation on an island having, unexpectedly, no automatic transmission cars.
Aside: article points a finger at sanctions but doesn't mention another fascinating problem-- Iran is one of the few countries left that isn't party to a copyright treaty. As Iranian author, would have to do first publication in a treaty country-- but the legal definition of "publication" is outdated in several countries and might not include, e.g., streaming. Good on these 30M guys for doing the work.
A practical win-win-win outcome might've been for the GameStop board to issue expensive shares to institutional short coverers and then to declare a one-time special dividend-- not quite $300/share, but something that'd appear to serve "the interests of the shareholders".
(Years later, there'd be scholarly works about how the GameStop Maneuver differs from a Ponzi Scheme.)
Poster above might be referring to this: https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2020/10/03/...
(Haven't read the judgment or materials, but) this decision seems to be in line with a similar 2001 UK case also involving a spy book and the special remedy of disgorgement of profits [1].
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney_General_v_Blake
Here's a practical argument for why you might need a lawyer to answer this question: the question gives rise to many, many legal issues. Some examples follow; no particular order.
(1) Where does country/jurisdiction X consider the Internet to be for the purposes of defining jurisdiction? Is it where the misled customers are? Is it where the infringer's servers are? What about Google? How will this affect your ability to enforce your TM rights, registered or otherwise?
(2) How does one acquire TM rights in country/jurisdiction X?
(3) What are the requirements of TM registration in country/jurisdiction X? Does it require "use"? What does "use" mean in country/jurisdiction X, including in light of (1) above? How long can you delay commencing "use" in X (or pause use in X) without losing your application/registration? How does X deal with Madrid Protocol filings? What priority, if any, will securing a registration give you over pre-existing but unregistered users of the same or a similar TM in X, and does this situation evolve over time? What is the practical cost of securing and maintaining a registration in country/jurisdiction X? Is your TM "confusing" with some other not-identical TM already used and/or registered in X? What does it mean for one TM to be "confusing" with another in X? Is your TM unregistrable in X? What does it mean to be unregistrable in X?
(4) What are the courts of country/jurisdiction X willing to do to enforce rights arising from a TM registration in X? If a court of X can't stop the infringer directly, would it consider enjoining a third party such as Google to at least stymy the infringer (e.g. by making the infringer unsearchable using Google)? What scope of protection are the courts of X willing to extend to your TM? Will the courts of X let other persons get away with minor variants? Will the courts of X let other persons get away with using the TM on unrelated goods or services? How unrelated? Will the courts of X recognize an order of a court of country/jurisdiction Y?
[Not US lawyer, but] an option open to some common law courts is leaving the legal owner in place while declaring that the thing owned is for the benefit of someone else (i.e. a beneficial owner).
My flatmate tried to "compressed air" his laptop once using his lab's compressor. Didn't turn the laptop off. Only two fan blades survived.
We glued the other blades back on to tide him over until a replacement arrived, but each day one or two would break off and we'd have to give the laptop a good shake to expel them.
...it's often difficult to know how precise one must be when advising flatmates about compressed air.
This is exactly the sort of thinking that let Pepsi bail on a jet fighter contract in the 90s.