arfar

Not to nit-pic, but it's a Trademark cancellation - not a patent. The confusion probably came from the fact it's before the US Patent and Trademark Office.

Very serious "whataboitism" here. People can care about more than one thing. Different people in societies can care and want to work on different things.

I know it's not actually relevant. But what a horrible website to read. The grey text is soooo lacking contrast on the white.

State your conclusion. Not doing so forces us to guess what you mean and is just poor communication. You're forcing me (and everyone that reads this comment) to guess what you mean.

Based on what _I think_ you're trying to say, I think this is a terrible take and I hate everything about it. People aren't trees. Society, people, and children especially shouldn't be forced to be exposed to anxiety inducing, depressing, and stress inducing situations. (But that's what I'm guessing what you're saying, since you have not put a real conclusion or clear statement there.)

I think even if it wasn't trademarked, they'd likely look into Passing Off (or whatever equivalent laws are present in the country they would decide to proceed with legal action is available), given the exact same name and style of a Nintendo product is being used.

There is also copyright in the design and layout of the NES interface, which has obviously been copied (it's the whole point of the project!), there's likely another option there.

Copyright only protects against actual copying. It's quite a limited right in comparison to patents. A patent can prevent others from implementing/selling/making/importing/exploiting the same invention independently created.

Copyright pales in comparison to the protection afforded by a patent.

I think is more about the political statement of leaving GitHub rather than the practicalities of code management.

I work in the tech transfer office for a medium sized university (a non practicing entity! shock horror) and patents are a very key tool for us.

Many players we license technology to are only interested in licensing a technology if it's protected by a patent. If there isn't any patent protection, then any third party willing to put enough in can simply read some journal articles published by the researchers (because they do publish everything they can for prestige and more government money) and implement the software themselves and the licensee has no way to stop them (other than through their own execution).

I haven't work at the tech transfer office for very long, but I think I have only seen software related inventions be licensed that had patent protection. When we do license a patent, the licensee most often receives worldwide exclusive rights to exploit the technology in their field. (well, I guess it's not quite worldwide monopoly, it's only a monopoly in the regions the patent is filed in, we do give them worldwide rights to use other stuff like copyright and trade secrets though).

In English we do have the word "liberty" for freedom.

Oh gosh those are the worst. And they never look good on your phone, so you have to get your laptop out (or tablet if you have one).

If it's not a pointless blog/article header, then the ingredients and method are split up across "tabs". So that now, when it says "melt the butter and whisk in half the flour", you need to flick back and forward multiple times for each step to remember what to do and how much to add.

Pelican is great for blogs. I don't know that I'd suggest it for a "Knowledgebase".