Recent Post
Recent Comments
- Elle:Happiness cannot be bought. Ha
- Jonathan:Thanks. It was good while it l
- Bob Miller:This was a reasonable cost-ben
- Ron Coleman:Thanks, Venkat. I am only scr
- Ron Coleman:Thanks, Abe.
LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION®- Secondary Trademark Infringement treatise updated for 2010-11 September 6, 2010From the Overview to the update of Secondary Trademark Infringement by Jane Coleman, which is now complete: Of all the contexts in which secondary liability has been raised, whether contributory or vicarious, the Internet has by far generated the most interest and attention. The advent of Internet commerce has created new problems for the law to […]
- Hardware trademark rejected in UK September 6, 2010Originally posted 2006-08-22 20:27:38. Republished by Blog Post PromoterThe Register reports: A businessman has failed to win the right to register the term “screw you” as a wide-ranging European trademark because it is offensive. It can be used, but only for goods sold in sex shops, the European trademark authority has ruled. Hard to harmonize […]
- No, no, a thousand times no. Homey. September 6, 2010Originally posted 2006-05-11 13:18:53. Republished by Blog Post Promoter Damon Wayans is rejected again in his attempt to file a trademark that only black people would be allowed to use. Or am I missing something? UPDATE: More, and related, here. No, no, a thousand times no. Homey. ©, . […]
- The infringement that never has to say “likelihood of confusion” September 6, 2010Originally posted 2006-02-21 10:40:47. Republished by Blog Post PromoterProfessor Eric Goldman writes about the latest unfortunate development in the extension of “initial interest confusion,” that “infringement” of the Lanham Act that continues the trend eviscerating the doctrine of nominative fair use. Initial interest confusion, which means that no real d […]
- Blawg Review #280 September 6, 2010Rosh Hashanah, the beginning of the Jewish New Year, begins this Wednesday night. And what could be a more appropriate occasion for Blawg Review—for us to pass judgment on a world of law blogging about law, justice and perhaps even mercy—than the Day of Judgment? Lest anyone think that Rosh Hashanah is of mere sectarian […]
- Secondary Trademark Infringement treatise updated for 2010-11 September 6, 2010
-
-
Likelihood of Exposure
More Photos -
-
March 21st, 2007 at 11:35 pm
If mac is like linux then it is impossible, by default settings anyway, to change system files or directories without starting a “root” session and approving the changes.
Windows is an easy target. Why should malware writers waste time figuring out how to override root authorizations when they can create self-installing windows apps?
March 21st, 2007 at 11:39 pm
In other words, the criminals simply follow the path of least resistance, just like everything else in the universe does.
March 22nd, 2007 at 11:54 am
FIAR,
is it path of least resistance or maximum damage? if you’re a terrorist are you going to go after the WTC or the Hello Deli?
March 22nd, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Both.
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Especially if it’s the kind of terrorism you don’t even have to get out of your chair to commit!
March 22nd, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Maybe they figure there’s nothing inside a Mac worth stealing or looking at.
Probably just a hard drive full of pretty pictures and iTunes songs.
Most hackers aren’t artists, and vice versa….
March 22nd, 2007 at 7:26 pm
Are you saying they aren’t sensitive types like Mac users?
March 23rd, 2007 at 8:48 am
My theory is that the existence of exploitable flaws is a revenue-enhancer for the Windows software biz. As actual viruses materialize, the potential for selling “protection” escalates. Today’s e-protection racket! So, while the software companies may not be creating the viruses themselves or through subcontractors (who knows?), they sure do benefit! Therefore, they do not exercize themselves unduly to make their handiwork virus resistant.
March 23rd, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Or it may be that individuals who are writing viruses, whose aim it is to spread to as many computers as possible, may decide that creating a virus that could only effect about four percent of desktop computers may just be a waste of time.
March 23rd, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Yeah, but you know what DPU? Everyone likes a niche — especially one, like Mac users, with a juicy and influential demographic.
March 23rd, 2007 at 8:38 pm
If you know much about programming and operating system design, your realize that it’s a simple matter of the Mac OS–which is really a variant of Unix underneath–is much more secure against this sort of thing. It just is.
Listen: if you know how Windows works under the hood, you realize that it’s about as secure as your average house. Whereas the Macs–along with the rest of the Unix-based systems–are about as secure as Fort Knox.
I can only speak in analogies so long, but that’s the basic gist of it. There are literally hundreds of thousands of working viruses and such for Windows. There are literally dozens of them for Unix-based systems even though there are millions of Unix-based systems all over the planet and they are especially popular with college-aged computer science geeks, the very people most likely to do juvenile things like write malicious software code. Yet viruses for those platforms are so rare that the few that have been documented have mostly been done as “proof of concept” by academics.
The reason is that these systems are more secure, period.
Blaming Microsoft for being the biggest target is like this:
Every week, Fort Knox gets raided by bandits who are rarely caught and make off with large boats of gold. And those in charge of Fort Knox say, “Well what do you expect, when we have all this GOLD lying around?”
Microsoft simply has never taken security seriously enough. That’s its real problem. No amount of excuse-making will get around that basic fact.
They lose on this argument of the marketing wars because Apple’s right and they’re wrong. Simple as that.
By the way, I do not currently own or use any Apple products, personally or professionally.