*swoon* Someday Hasselblad Some Day!

What is the picture/video overlayed on the device from?

Engadget, you just earned the "seriously legal badass" award of the week. I wish you had had reporting like this when everyone was screaming about the Kindle kid winning his "case in court" against Amazon.com and about all the "precedent" that would set ... which is exactly zero, since it was a settlement, not a win in court. But hey, you at least got this one right. Thanks!

@WindowsFTW: While a normal mirror may be burned thorugh ... some of the latest advances in mirror technology could really reap havoc with this. Imagine one of these mirrors ( http://www.newscientist.com/gallery/dn16585-amazing-mirrors/1 ) designed so that no matter what angle you are looking at it, it reflects straight back to you. Super smooth, super fancy, make it of a material that can take a bit of heat and you're golden - even if you get it dirty, dirt gets burned off, and boom. Design these puppies onto helmets and we have all types of problems.

TradeMark has a very specific provision for protect it or lose it.

However, in copyright, if you do not protect it, you can be blocked from enforcement due to implied license, equitable estoppel, statute of limitations (3yr civil, 5yr criminal).

In particular, equitable estoppel could have came into existance because (1) Google knew of Cyanogen's infringing conduct; (2) Google's lack of action could lead Cyanogen to believe that Google intended for its closed source apps to be distributed with custom Android ROMs; (3) Cyanogen could have been ignorant of the fact that Google did not intend for its apps to be redistributed; and (4) Cyanogen may have relied on Google's failure to notify it of copyright violation, thus depending on the redistribution of this software, and ultimately being injured in terms of time and development once Google decided to block this development.

There is a reasonable time element to equitable estoppel -- in that if Google notifies Cyanogen in a reasonable period, which they have, then the equitable estoppel defense is unlikely to exist.

Furthermore, other parties could have looked at Cyanogen's distribution of the ROM plus Apps and interpreted it as permission to do the same - and perhaps even indirectly charge for Google's Apps by bundling them with a custom ROM and charge for redistribution.

So no, this is not exactly like TradeMark where failure to enforce is spelled out, but there is case law that is on point.

In order for Google to enforce its IP against third parties that would actually use it, they cannot turn a blind eye to this type of work.

However, if they wanted to actually be cool about it, they would have offered him a limited distribution license instead of a C&D.

Windows 7 Theme Party: "So Simple, even a bunch of drunks can use it!"

Crap, I just bought the 100mm Macro USM f/2.8 two months ago on the advice that Canon would not be putting out an IS version of it for at least two more years.

Hmm, I wonder if I can sell my lens and buy one of these instead *drool*.

As for the TM claim, he is claiming them in an area other than RFID and hearing aids. Additionally, it is unlikely for someone to mix up his hijinks with those other products. Therefore, he could totally use those as trademarks for this use.

Yah. No way am I going to let someone stab my monitor with a pen. LCDs are already damaged by excess pressure, I see nothing good coming out of this. Except maybe sturdier LCDs.