I'm guessing the cost of actually doing this is more than he has. And even if he wins, I'm sure King.com will spend months or years trying to appeal the ruling which will cost him more money.
Well if the case is strong enough, the US at least you don't need money, you tell the lawyers they can keep the the money all you want is to establish your right to the trademark.
Then they go off and bring this guy down, make their money, and you get the satisfaction of knowing that your trademark is safe.
If you have this issue in your life, using any service is a bad idea. This includes Facebook, Pinterest, anything. When you interact with services you create data and in many ways data exhaust that can be used to locate you or reveal things about your interests, traits, etc.
What most reporting is missing is that the early adopters are cashing out because it is now worthwhile to do so. And the prices keep jumping right back up, due to the late adopters.
Whenever you see a huge crash in a short period of time and a quick gain, expect it to recover. If you see a prolonged slow decline, it's time to abandon ship...
Max Brooks, if you're reading this, you definitely have to add this little snippet as to why Vancouver fell in the great zombie apocalypse. (While zombies were unable to operate traditional doorknobs due to lack of coordination and mental ability, levers were another story...)
Really the most annoying conclusion possible in the article: "The free market wins again."
The free market gets to win after sufficient government handouts gets something up and running. Then private businesses can swoop in and take the networks (or in this case, the concept) and claim that they won.
If your mother gives you a lollipop, you didn't win an epic battle for the lollipop. Just saying...
While I definitely agree with you on the whole, there are some specifics that are ignored by your comment.
The French Minitel system allowed for semi-free market activities, by allowing companies to use the system.
The German Bildschirmtext failed because it apparently kept too much control: the decoder boxes were expensive and only able to be purchased at one location, and I don't think they allowed for others to use the service.
Minitel was not something that had "never been built before", there were Videotex systems developed before. Of course, it's hard for a private company to use tax money to offer free terminals to everyone.
Just remember, this is not an argument against the UN.
It's an argument for letting people live their lives.
The USA had to do a second coup to get their 'beloved' President Aristide out of power. (the second one with the help of Canadian troops, no less).
Canada and then the UN were the follow through. The real reason? They were not compliant with foreign investment interests. (Arguments at corruption or vote rigging are so flaccid and transparent that I won't even bother.) Also I should mention that young men streaming across the Dominican border armed by the USA don't count as a popular uprising.
Take Gildan activewear as an example. They have uppity garment workers in Montreal, so they create excess production facilities in Honduras. Then the Hondurans get uppity and they create excess production facilities in Haiti (the cheapest place in the western hemisphere for wages).
(You don't live in a capitalist society if capital can move freely and people can't. That's international serfdom.)
So what happened when Fanmi Lavalas started making Haitians uppity?
You hit them with a stick. And of course you hit the serfs who are the most vulnerable, it's cheaper that way and serves as an example to others.
