| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Microsoft stubs its toe on its steppingstone in Europe | |
|
||
| Time: 10:59 EST/15:59 GMT | News Source: E-Mail | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
When Jose Lorvao took delivery of the most advanced interactive television system in the world, he relished the chance to send e-mail, check his bank account and record movies on his TV set while snuggling into his sofa. "I thought it was a great idea. It sounded like fun," Lorvao said of the iTV system devised by Microsoft Corp. and marketed by Portuguese cable operator TV Cabo. Three months later, in despair, he sent it back. "It just didn't work. It drove me crazy," the 32-year-old copy editor said. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 26 through 50 of 265 Prev | Last | Next |
The time now is
9:48:02 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #26 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/14/2002 6:19:49 PM |
|
grow some balls = inappropriate
take it like a man = appropriate PC or not, this site isn't your property. It does have a TOS and you violate it quite often with your comments. Surely, you can descend from your cloud on high and grace us with a little propriety from your lips. |
| #27 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/14/2002 6:20:33 PM |
| Oops, I missed the ignorant comment. Of what am I ignorant, jerk? |
| #28 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 10/14/2002 6:50:40 PM |
|
Hmm. Interesting. I must have at some time mistyped a sentence and used the word patent instead of trademark and now sodajerk is holding this over my head?
Bizarre. |
| #29 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/14/2002 6:55:30 PM |
| You mean you don't remember the argument you never had, sodablue? |
| #30 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 10/14/2002 7:24:59 PM |
|
"Lindows.com Asks for Victory in Microsoft Case"
#17 sodablue 10/8/2002 4:47 [""Sodajerk celebrates 50 year career" http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/Central/10/07/offbeat.soda.jerk.ap/index.html Wow, I didn't know you'd been trolling that long. :) mooresa56 - Oh hell, Apple even patented Macintosh, despite there already having been numerous items using the name McIntosh. "] Which ever your meaning--trademark or patent, it shows you don't know what you are talking about... as it is in fact perfectly legal to trademark prviously used marks if its a different market space. Bob, again, why do you jump into issues you know dick about and aren't involved in? And I would say "a non intended intretive response seems appropriate to me" is an ignorant position to take. We keep going on about this bullsh!t, and I notice you haven't stepped up to say that UTV is a successful implementation of web/interactive TV yet. This post was edited by sodajerk on Monday, October 14, 2002 at 19:26. |
| #31 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/14/2002 7:28:58 PM |
| Exactly what don't I know dick about? Why is it that you make such rediculous accusations and never answer my questions about them? |
| #32 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 10/14/2002 7:46:23 PM |
|
I guess I'm helping you get those post counts up, huh, dipsh!t? You claimed I was making up something that sodablue said from a conversation I supposedly made up, right? What does my post say above? It's a quote from sodablue from 6 days ago, moron, that says exactly what I had said. In other words, this was an issue between soda and myself and you're spouting off that nothing ever happened is completely wrong and as far as I know neither soda or myself were sitting here saying,"Hmm, I wonder what Bob thinks about our personal disagreement."
And again, is UltimateTV a successful implementation of interactive/web TV or is it a failure? Or will you stay on these moronic tangents? This post was edited by sodajerk on Monday, October 14, 2002 at 19:47. |
| #33 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/14/2002 7:58:43 PM |
|
It is interesting that you attacked sodablue for a statement of his about patents. You have yet to explain from your clearly superior intellectual position exactly how sodablue's post demonstrates his lack of understanding of the difference between patents and trademarks. Sure in his post, he should have said trademark. I know that. From your perspective, though, it should be obvious that there are those on this board that don't know the difference between the two. Rather than attacking them, why don't you education them?
You still haven't answered my questions, btw. The most logical conclusion to draw is that you claim that I don't know dick about the sodajerk vs sodablue dispute on patents/trademarks. Since I've read all the applicable threads, how exactly do I not know dick about it? How can you say on a public newsgroup which I frequent, that I'm not involved? Every visitor to the site is involved. If you want to have a private conversation, perhaps you should IM or email sodablue and discuss it. |
| #34 By 3653 (65.190.70.73) at 10/14/2002 7:59:50 PM |
|
LOL. sodajerk, you are quite a character.
First, I CHALLENGE YOU to provide the link to the conversation where you QUOTE me as saying "Oh hell, Apple even patented Macintosh, despite there already having been numerous items using the name McIntosh. " I CHALLENGE YOU TO PROVIDE THE LINK TO THAT QUOTE. At no time, did I even mention MacIntosh. Second, I never said I had sex with your wife. I made a reference to Mrs. Sodajerk. Think maternal, or is that non-existent too? This post was edited by mooresa56 on Monday, October 14, 2002 at 20:04. |
| #35 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/14/2002 8:05:18 PM |
| lol @ athlon! I think AW gets paid for impressions, so the more we come back here arguing with jerk, the more revenue they'll generate. It's our little way of helping the site. ; - ) |
| #36 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 10/14/2002 8:06:00 PM |
|
Yes, athon, I agree. Mooresa, again you freaking idiot... I just posted it above, but this is by sodablue--he was talking to you: "mooresa56 - Oh hell, Apple even patented Macintosh, despite there already having been numerous items using the name McIntosh." Get it. I didn't say you said that, moron.
I did call you an idiot in the same post though, as you pointed out earlier. That's because you said "Apple" was generic which had nothing to do with the issue--it's not generic to computer hardware or software--hence, you're an idiot for thinking that's a valid defense argument. If you'd like to relive it, just search for "Lindows Victory." |
| #37 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 10/14/2002 8:13:23 PM |
|
And, Bob, can you get any freaking stupider: "The most logical conclusion to draw is that you claim that I don't know dick about the sodajerk vs sodablue dispute on patents/trademarks." Well, let's see.. you said: "You mean you don't remember the argument you never had, sodablue?" So either you're a liar, a moron, can't remember yesterday, or don't know what the hell you are talking about. If you read all the posts and knew them so well, why didn't you say, "Umm, soda, you're wrong, you said that."
"You have yet to explain from your clearly superior intellectual position exactly how sodablue's post demonstrates his lack of understanding of the difference between patents and trademarks." What the hell does: "as it is in fact perfectly legal to trademark prviously used marks if its a different market space" mean to you, moron? That's the explanation (of soda's lack of trademark knowledge) and I've provided it many times before, but your pee brain can't pick it up. There can be multiple businesses with the same name as long as they are in different markets. Maybe you remember my example: I said you could have "Apple Computers and Apple Records and even Apple Dildos if you wanted to without violating trademarks" Remember that, moron? I'm sure you saw it as an insult to your sexual proclivities. I thought I had throughly schooled a few people in that disc a week ago but apparently all three of you are still morons. I don't see any reason to explain the difference between patents and trademarks if soda is denying that's what he meant--although he didn't bring it up a week ago when I jumped on him at the time--I assumed he sulked away because he realized it was a bonehead remark, but if he's claiming it was a typo, I'll take him at his word. This post was edited by sodajerk on Monday, October 14, 2002 at 20:21. |
| #38 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/14/2002 8:23:20 PM |
|
Perhaps I misremember that thread, but it seems that sodablue was arguing. He made a comment, as a joke, and said patent instead of trademark. From that you go off ranting. From my perspective, blue never argued, so I'm my statement is still accurate.
I don' t know why you went into your second paragraph there. You seem to assert that you know the differences between trademarks and patents. That was your point. What does using a trademark in a different market space have to do with telling the difference between patents and trademarks - the arguement that you started. Also, since you quoted sodablue's post, I haven't seen him deny or afirm anything. It seems that he hasn't claimed anything and that you are jumping to conclusions. |
| #39 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/14/2002 8:25:12 PM |
|
moore, I don't know why jerk didn't post this in the first place.
http://www.activewin.com/awin/comments.asp?HeadlineIndex=12579&Group=1&redir=%2Fsearch%2Fresults%2Easp%3FSearch%3Dkeyword%26Keyword%3DLindows%2Ecom%26Month%3D%26Day%3D%26Year%3D%26&redirname=Search That's the link the lindow thread he's been referring to. |
| #40 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 10/14/2002 8:37:13 PM |
|
Oh boy, Bob, no matter what I post you aren't going to understand it are you? I've got mooresa thinking I've attributed something to him that soda said, I've got soda claiming he never said it, you (without remembering it or any involvment in the discussion) claiming that none of it ever happened, you asking me for an explanation that I don't need and was only relevent last week, and all of you are scurrying around acting like idiots.
And still you haven't said a single thing regarding iTV or UltimateTV. Seriously, Bob, can you read--for example, can you comprehend the logical connection between these two statements: "I don't see any reason to explain the difference between patents and trademarks if soda is denying that's what he meant--although he didn't bring it up a week ago when I jumped on him at the time--I assumed he sulked away because he realized it was a bonehead remark, but if he's claiming it was a typo, I'll take him at his word." and "That's the explanation (of soda's lack of trademark knowledge) and I've provided it many times before..." which yields this nonsense: "I don' t know why you went into your second paragraph there. You seem to assert that you know the differences between trademarks and patents. That was your point. What does using a trademark in a different market space have to do with telling the difference between patents and trademarks - the arguement that you started." My point was: soda was talking out of his ass whether or not he meant trademark or patent. This post was edited by sodajerk on Monday, October 14, 2002 at 20:47. |
| #41 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/14/2002 8:42:15 PM |
|
Who is the little idiot jerk? I already explained my posting reasons.
As for the topic of this thread, you've now spent at least 90% of your posts not talking about it. Why don't you take your own medicine and not post about things offtopic if it bothers you so much? |
| #42 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 10/14/2002 8:46:33 PM |
| Because I'm responding to claims that you make about me, idiot. It doesn't bother me, I just think it makes you look like an idiot. And you enjoy posting to watch a little number get a little higher--guess what 2068 is next, if you haven't posted it yet. I enjoy posting because I like telling idiots that they are idiots. |
| #43 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/14/2002 8:50:52 PM |
| lol |
| #44 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 10/14/2002 9:12:06 PM |
|
Don't no what iTV had going for it, but most of UTV is in there; hence, why it is easy to say it was a failure.
(and we come back full circle. Thanks, Trade) |
| #45 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 10/14/2002 10:02:13 PM |
|
Oh, heh... I mistyped. I obviously meant to say trademark there, not patent.
Ok, argument solved... |
| #46 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 10/14/2002 10:18:35 PM |
| Right, but will you concede that it's idiotic to say Apple trademarked Macintosh (which did have its own trademark lawsuit and was found legal) when multiple product in different categories can exist with the same mark therefore it's entirely irrelevent to the whole Windows trademark issue? |
| #47 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/14/2002 10:34:59 PM |
| lol, still on topic ;-) |
| #48 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/14/2002 11:26:48 PM |
| lol |
| #49 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 10/14/2002 11:54:22 PM |
|
Ok, I concede that it is idiotic to say Apple trademarked Macintosh.
lol You will never catch me Bob Smith! NEVER I SAY! This post was edited by sodablue on Monday, October 14, 2002 at 23:54. |
| #50 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/14/2002 11:56:29 PM |
| Unless you plan on running that script of yours, I'll possibly pass you before the week is out! |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 26 through 50 of 265 Prev | Last | Next |
The time now is
9:48:02 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
