[url]http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1710844,00.html[/url]

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;333816][url]http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1710844,00.html[/url][/QUOTE]I am a Christian that has never believed in 'heaven going'.
The reward promised to the faithful is always a bodily life here on earth.
"The meek shall inherit the earth", Jesus quoting King David.
"And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet [U]in my flesh[/U] shall I see God: Whom I shall see for myself, and [U]mine eyes[/U] shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me." Job 19:26-27 (That speaks of a fleshly resurrection.)
"And the LORD said unto Abram, after that Lot was separated from him, Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward: For all the land which thou seest, to [U]thee[/U] will I give it, and to thy seed for ever." Gen13:14-15 (Sounds like he is being promised land on earth and that he as a person will be in it.)

[url]http://phrontistery.info/favourite.html[/url]

[url]http://www.choiceofgames.com/dragon/[/url]

Oddly, a Yahoo! search on

define "caboose papoose"

returned exactly 1 result: [URL]http://www.coursehero.com/file/5238390/words/[/URL]

which seems to be about study guides for SUNY computer science courses. :-)

Why does the legal system care about descriptiveness?
 

Apple has been denied a copyright claim on "Ipad Mini" because it's not descriptive enough. I'd like to know why the US legal system thinks that part of their duty is to determine if a name is descriptive enough. Their purpose is to determine whether or not there will be any brand confusion and deal with THAT. There are other duties, but that's the main one.

In my mind, Apple's defense should be the US legal system equivalent of,"Wtf are you talking about? It's not your job to give a damn about descriptiveness. Just do your job, you dumbasses." Plus, the name is Ipad Mini, so I think everyone's conclusion is that it's a smaller Apple tablet. The people that are confused by that name probably aren't customers to begin with.

[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21987831[/url]

[QUOTE=jasong;335627]Apple has been denied a copyright claim on "Ipad Mini" because it's not descriptive enough. I'd like to know why the US legal system thinks that part of their duty is to determine if a name is descriptive enough. Their purpose is to determine whether or not there will be any brand confusion and deal with THAT. There are other duties, but that's the main one.

In my mind, Apple's defense should be the US legal system equivalent of,"Wtf are you talking about? It's not your job to give a damn about descriptiveness. Just do your job, you dumbasses."

[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21987831[/url][/QUOTE]

The last thing Apple needs is more encouragement.

[QUOTE=Dubslow;335628]The last thing Apple needs is more encouragement.[/QUOTE]
Well, I don't intend to be a cheerleader for them, but I try to be fair-minded about stuff.

[QUOTE=jasong;335632]Well, I don't intend to be a cheerleader for them, but I try to be fair-minded about stuff.[/QUOTE]

Fair enough :razz: But for every case where the government wrongs Apple, there are 10 cases where Apple wronged the people.

[QUOTE=jasong;335632]Well, I don't intend to be a cheerleader for them, but I try to be fair-minded about stuff.[/QUOTE]
Copyright is not the same as trademark. This concerns a trademark.
Read the linked article again, along with the letter from the USPTO explaining the rejection.

It's "iPad Mini". Capitalization does matter in this case.