News:

Welcome to Wittenberg!

Main Menu
Menu

Show posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Show posts Menu

Messages - Eiric S. Bornatfiglheu

#46
Approve.  Clark it.
#47
With no substantive change, it looks like it'll do what you want it to.

Approved, Clark it.
#48
RZ5 Con
RZ6 Con
RZ7 Con
RZ8 Con
RZ9 Con
RZ10 Aus
#49
Estimats Senators,

Please log your votes here or elsewhere as established by Senats tradition and rules.
#50
Enthusiastically approve.  Clark it.
#51
If I'm reading everything correctly, I THINK this works.  I'd say Clark it.
#52
Oh yes!  In altered form, approve.  Clark it.
#53
I don't know if this is technologically feasible... but would it be possible to get a "track changes" version of this bill?  The lists are just so long and overlap could slip by so easily.
#54
Wittenberg / Re: Word Mark TALOSSA
March 24, 2023, 06:54:32 PM
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on March 21, 2023, 02:56:10 PMHe could?  I must not understand something about the process.  I would have thought that we could file to claim a canceled trademark not otherwise being used in commerce.

If I  am correct in my understanding of the matter here (and keep in mind my IP knowledge is mainly in terms of copyright and licensing), Ben could essentially say "Hey!  I use that too, and it is therefor too common for their sole use."

Essentially how you can trademark a specific logo and name, but not a type of business.

And, even if he ISN'T within his rights... do we have the resources to slug it out in an American court?
#55
King should not be able to authorize expenditure without the Cosa, and your and/or gives him the ability to do this.  Given that financial bills have to originate int he Cosa, they should be the backstop here.
#56
Approve.  Clark it
#57
There are a fair number of moving parts.  But I THINK it will function.

Approve.
#58
Looks fine.  Approve.
#59
So the bill is meaningless.  Got it.

Approve.
#60
I think there's a problem here in getting this bill to do what you want it to do, and that is there is no method spelled out for doing this.  What does it mean to be "released to the Royal archives?"  Would it be sufficient to give whomever is the archivist access to the same forum?  And is the royal archivist then required to publicly publish the same?

Also, 10 years is a dog's age in Talossa.  That's not transparency.