среда, 22 апреля 2015 г.

uHow To Survive A Trip To IKEA Without Dumping Your Partnerr


4 4 4 9
  • Hardware stores aren’t the only retail establishments that pose an existential threat to domestic partnerships. Mega-home-store IKEA can also be a treacherous place, where the issues in a relationship surface as you search for items to fill your home together, then get them home and assemble them. That’s why one therapist actually uses the store’s flat-pack furniture as an exercise for patients: they have to assemble a piece of flat-pack furniture together and report back on how they communicated during the process.

    A trip to IKEA can also precede moving in together, everything will suddenly seem very real once you can’t agree on a couch. “Once we were in the store, the reality of combining two individual lives started to sink in,” one woman explained to the Wall Street Journal.

    It’s not that IKEA wants couples to split up, even if that would result in two separate households that would need to buy more furnishings at IKEA. If you plan ahead, you can make an appointment with a “home-furnishings consultant” who can help with design and furniture selections, even if this person doesn’t come home with you and help assemble your choices. One former consultant even drew up guidelines for couples who are redoing a room and don’t want to endanger their relationship. The first and most important step: look at a catalog before heading to the store, and settle on a furniture style before traveling to the store.

    Can Your Relationship Handle a Trip to IKEA? [Wall Street Journal]



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist


uKaty Perry’s Attempt To Claim A Trademark On “Left Shark” Design Fails Like A Left Sharkr


4 4 4 9
  • leftsharkThe “Left Shark” phenomenon that overtook the world after Katy Perry’s Super Bowl halftime show has long since exited the cultural dialog, and yet the battle rages on over whether or not the pop star can claim a trademark on the uncoordinated, anthropomorphic fish.

    For those who have already forgotten about Left Shark, or who slept through its 12 minutes of fame, during Perry’s halftime show she was briefly flanked by a pair of dancers in shark costumes. The one to her right (audience left) was not exactly in sync with the choreography and the Internet rejoiced in the lack of coordination before moving on to something else very soon thereafter.

    Some people attempted to cash in on the fleeting Left Shark feeding frenzy, like the designer who created a 3D-printable model of the infamous finned beast, only to have Perry’s lawyers come after him over claims of copyright and intellectual property violations.

    The singer’s company tried to trademark the shark design along with phrases like “Left Shark,” “Right Shark,” “Drunk Shark,” and “Basking Shark.”

    But The Hollywood Reporter notes that the examiner at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office rejected the registration request, saying the design “identifies only a particular character; it does not function as a service mark to identify and distinguish applicant’s services from those of others and to indicate the source of applicant’s services.”

    Also at issue is the fact that the design submitted by Perry’s people differs from the Left Shark shown during the Super Bowl.

    The examiner points to a photo from the event submitted to bolster the application and points out that in the photo, “The shark has five gills, a full mouth with teeth and round eyes with eyelids,” while the design submitted”displays the mark as a stylized depiction of an upright shark in full front profile with no dorsal fin, two full pectoral fins and two legs and feet; the shark has three gills and the shark’s mouth appears without teeth; the shark also has oval eyes without eyelids.”

    As for registering the actual “Left Shark” phrase, the examiner had questions. Specifically, he wanted to know what exactly this phrase would be used to describe, since you can’t just trademark two commonly used words and say that no one can use them in any way without your approval.

    THR says the application refers to using the trademark on “costumes,” but the examiner wants to know if that means Halloween costumes or costumes for dancers. Likewise, does “figurines” mean “modeled plastic toy figurines”?

    None of this resolves the issue of copyright. Some lawyers contend you can’t copyright a costume. Perry’s lawyers argue that the drawings of the sharks are copyrightable, but a lawyer for the 3D modeler accused of violating Perry’s copyright claims that the copyright on those drawings has nothing to do with a 3D model of a costume.

    Sadly, this is probably not the last time we’ll be hearing about this stupid, stupid, stupid shark.

    [via AV club]



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist


uCongress One Step Closer To Granting Fast-Track Authority For Passing Mysterious Trans-Pacific Trade Treatyr


4 4 4 9
  • Global trade deals are kind of arcane stuff. Diplomats spend years or decades negotiating them, in an endless series of meetings around the world. Not only do all the i’s need to be dotted and t’s crossed, but every a, an, and, if, then, and but needs to be reviewed, revised, discussed, and agreed upon ten times over. It’s a laborious process.

    You might think, with something so detailed, specific, and important, that the authors would want as many eyes on it as possible — but you would think wrong. Trade negotiations are 100% secret. They happen behind doors so closed that even Congress doesn’t get to read the document they’re eventually supposed to sign off on.

    Here’s how the U.S. enters into trade agreements:

    1. The United States Trade Representative, who reports up to the President, negotiates the agreement with other nations.
    2. The Senate votes on the completed treaty. 67 senators — a ⅔ majority — have to approve it.
    3. The President ratifies (signs) the approved trade agreement.
    4. The agreement becomes national and international law.

    There’s also something called fast-tracking, and it’s exactly what it sounds like: a short-cut through the approval process. If Congress grants the President fast-track authority, that means the fully-negotiated, finished treaty goes straight to the Senate for a vote: no amendments, no filibusters, no changes or negotiations. It’s a wholesale yes/no, binary option.

    Fast-track authority has more or less been the default since 1974, with a series of bills extending it. The most recent was in 2002 but expired in 2007 and has not been renewed since. And that’s where today’s conflict comes in.

    The White House is asking Congress to pass another bill granting fast-track authority. At stake is the Trans-Pacific Partnership, an enormous, sprawling, high-stakes Pacific Rim agreement spanning everything from agriculture to healthcare to copyright law.

    At least, we think that’s what it spans. Because negotiations are so secret — despite pleas from advocacy groups and politicians — nobody’s 100% sure what the TPP actually encompasses. A few draft segments hit WikiLeaks a year back, and outside of that it remains a locked-door mystery.

    CONFUSED BY THE TPP? CHECK OUT OUR EXPLAINER ON EVERYTHING WE KNOW ABOUT THE DEAL AND THE PROCESS.

    The reauthorization bills in the House and Senate are creating strange sets of political bedfellows to say the least, in the current hyper-partisan environment. Republican committee heads in both the House and Senate are moving to get the bills through committee quickly. The New York Times reports this week that lawmakers have agreed on a version of the authorization bill that would give the President fast-track authority — but in slow-motion. As the NYT explains:

    The president would have to notify Congress of the accord’s completion 90 days before he intends to sign it, a delay similar to past requirements. But in a new twist, the full agreement would have to be made public for 60 days before the president gives his final assent and sends it to Congress. Congress could not begin considering it for 30 days after that.

    The oxymoron of slow-motion fast-tracking means that Congress would have a period of time to review the negotiated treaty before signing off on it… and that the delay period would carry the process of authorizing the TPP straight through the 2016 election season and into a new administration.

    However, the White House is facing significant push-back on the attempt to get fast-track authorization moving… from members of the same party. Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren has become particularly outspoken on the issue, saying this week in a blog post: “We’ve all seen the tricks and traps that corporations hide in the fine print of contracts. We’ve all seen the provisions they slip into legislation to rig the game in their favor. Now just imagine what they have done working behind closed doors with TPP.” She also created a petition for anyone leery of the TPP to sign on to.

    Is the TPP terrible? We don’t know. Maybe it promises unicorns and candy to every child int he 12 signatory nations, and free iPhones for all. But that seems pretty dang unlikely. More probably, it promises corporate loopholes and concessions that benefit a very few shareholders at the expense of many ordinary citizens. If the leaked IP chapters are anything to go on, it also stands to make a very bad copyright situation even worse.

    But as long as it’s in the dark, nobody really knows.



ribbi
  • by Kate Cox
  • via Consumerist


uSears Announces Final Two Stores They’ll Be Sharing With Primarkr


4 4 4 9
  • Last year, as part of their “taking on roommates” strategy of keeping their doors open, Sears announced that they were leasing parts of seven stores to Primark, a clothing retailer out of Ireland. Sears has finally named all seven of the stores where Primark will be moving in. All seven are in the Northeast.

    Back in October, while announcing that Primark was coming to the King of Prussia Mall near Philadelphia, the company’s head of real estate explained that partnering with other retailers made perfect sense for Sears, which no longer needs its massive anchor stores. “Primark will bring increased customer traffic to each of these malls and dramatically enhance the retail shopping experience as we rationalize our selling space to improve the productivity of our stores,” he said back then. Maybe some of those shoppers will wander into Sears. Or not.

    Here are the malls where customers can expect to check out Primark sometime in 2015. The two announced this week are in bold.

    Burlington Mall, Burlington, Massachusetts
    Danbury Fair in Danbury, Connecticut
    Freehold Raceway Mall, Freehold, New Jersey
    King of Prussia Mall, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania
    South Shore Plaza, Braintree, Massachusetts
    Staten Island Mall, Staten Island, New York
    Willow Grove Park Mall, Willow Grove, Pennsylvania



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist


uAmazon & DHL Testing Delivery To Customers’ Car Trunksr


4 4 4 9
  • Amazon will begin testing a new delivery method that allows couriers to place packages to the trunk of customers’ cars.

    It’s not uncommon for consumers to shuttle around packages and shopping bags in the trunks of their cars. While most people but those items there themselves, Amazon wants to take that task off the hands of a very exclusive group of Prime members.

    The Wall Street Journal reports that Amazon will begin testing a new delivery method next month that allows consumers to receive packages to the trunk of their car, whether they’re present or not.

    In order to participate in the experiment consumers must meet fairly strict requirements: live in Munich, Germany, be a Prime member and own an internet-connected Audi vehicle.

    Delivery – which is a partnership between the online retailer, Audi and shipping company DHL – occurs when a Prime member agrees to give couriers temporary electronic access to the trunk of their vehicles.

    While completing their Amazon transaction, consumers choosing the new delivery option must provide an approximate location of their vehicle and a window of time in which the package can be delivered.

    Amazon says that while the testing is only taking place in Munich, it hopes to roll out the new service internationally in the future.

    Amazon Tests Package Delivery to Cars [The Wall Street Journal]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uNew “Hello” App Puts Facebook In Control Of Screening, Blocking Phone Callsr


4 4 4 9
  • hellograbBecause we’ve somehow gotten to a place where we can no longer answer the phone without knowing exactly who is calling and why, Facebook is rolling out a new app, dubbed “Hello,” that effectively uses all the info Facebook has about its users to help you decide whether to answer/ignore/block incoming calls.

    According to Facebook’s David Marcus, the app would be used in place of your phone’s current phone dialing and answering functionality.

    If a Facebook user calls you, you’ll apparently see whatever info Facebook has on that person. So you can see that 8-year-old photo (or photo of their kids) that they keep as their profile image, and info like where they work and their birthday. When your mopey best friend calls to complain about everyone forgetting his birthday, you’ll know to answer with “Happy birthday old chum!” or something like that.

    Hello will also let you block certain callers and give you the ability to ignore frequently blocked numbers. As you can see from the screengrab above, when an unknown caller contacts you, it will tell you how many others have blocked this particular number.

    The question is: How much more information do you want to share with Facebook? The company already tracks your browsing habits, your shopping preferences, what you like and don’t like. You may be reluctant to also let it know who you’re calling, for how long and how frequently.



ribbi
  • by Chris Morran
  • via Consumerist


uHelicopter Group Claims Flight Restrictions In The Hamptons Are Unconstitutionalr


4 4 4 9
  • Though many well-to-do denizens of the Hamptons likely enjoy the comforts and convenience of a helicopter hither and thither to the popular Long Island weekend getaway destination, there have been so many complaints about noise from the aircraft that the local government has issued new restrictions on flights in the area. That isn’t going over well with the helicopter industry there.

    A group representing helicopter operators is suing over new laws restricting flights at East Hampton’s town airport, arguing that they’re unconstitutional, reports the Associated Press.

    Those new laws were voted in last week after officials received 24,591 about airport-related noise in 2014, many of those coming in the summer when the crowds flock to the area. It’s not a new problem, either as elected officials and others in the town have been trying to solve the problem for several years.

    The laws are slated to go into effect Memorial Day weekend, creating curfews on all takeoffs and landings and a shorter window set for aircraft considered noisy (as defined by the FAA). Those noisemakers are also restricted to landing and taking off only once a week between May and September.

    Friends of East Hampton Airport filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Central Islip on Tuesday claiming that the local government doesn’t have the authority to impose airport noise or access restrictions, and instead, only the Federal Aviation Administration does.

    “What East Hampton is seeking to do is illegal and sets back by at least a year any effort to resolve the issue through compromise, practical operational alternatives and dialogue,” said the CEO of Heliflite, a company that joined the suit.

    But the town say it’s allowed to set the rules because it doesn’t receive FAA grand funding and hasn’t in years, which officials say give them the final word on airport operations.

    “The town is fully prepared for this litigation and will vigorously defend its legal and constitutional right to impose reasonable, non-arbitrary, and carefully balanced restrictions,” officials said in a news release.

    Lawsuit Challenges Airport Noise Curfews in the Hamptons [Associated Press]



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist