You can file for an european trademark directly online on the european trademark website.

It costs about 1300€ (as far as I can remember) for 3 categories, 150€ for each category. It will take you some time however to fill out the forms, and select the proper phrases.

You can always remove clauses from your registration, but never add clauses!

If there is a conflict (and there most certainly is one ;-)), be sure to hire an expert.

You have to use it in the european union for it to be valid.

To be honest, sometimes I see downvoting as a compliment. It just shows me how stupid other people are.

It just shows the differences in views. Even something that is so obvious, logical, rational to you can be so ridiculous and downright stupid to others. But it will be healthy for discussion if they say why they downvote. It is like passing judgement without explaining your judgement. You don't win minds or opinions over from the downvoted person and the downvoter doesn't understand the other guy's point of view as well.

I downvote comments that don't add anything of value to the discussion. Why would I want to comment on something like that? By the very nature of commenting, I'm only doing the same thing the downvoted comment is doing: adding a post that adds nothing to the conversation.

Voting should have nothing to do with whether you agree with a comment or not. It should be indicative of the value of the comment to the discussion of the topic at hand.

Doesn't it make you angry when sometimes you don't even get to read those "stupid" opinions? I don't care about my karma score but I do care about someone virtually coming up to me, slapping me in the face, and then leaving without a word.

If downvote is like a slap in the face for you then you are taking it much much too serious. And thank's for calling me not being worthy to be intelligent human being.

Update: I will downvote anyone with such stupidly patronizing and passive-aggressive attitude like "if you downvote me (or anyone else) then you are stupid or not worthy". Anyone is free to downvote my comments for any reason they like: be it disagreement, not liking the tone of it, or me being factually wrong. I'd appreciate the correcting comment in the latter case though, but by no means the lack of such I would consider an insult or "slap in the face". I don't think there is any problem with downvoting on HN, but I guess there are problems with some egos.

Look, you can call this a problem with my ego or whatever. I happen to think that there are certain minimum standards of politeness that should be upheld online as well as offline. And for me that includes using words to explain any disagreement instead of just acting in some ambiguous way that can be interpreted as hostile.

You seem to think that downvotes deal with disagreement, or that you should even downvote soemthing you disagree with. Instead, downvoting should exist for comments that provide no value to the discussion of the topic. If you're getting downvoted with no discuss on it, maybe you should reconsider the value of the comment, and see if it really helps spur discussion.

The way a comment is phrased is part of this. Coming off like a rude jerk isn't going to help your cause any. I don't downvote things I disagree with, but I will vote down people who aren't helping create a worthwhile discussion.

Should I respond to these? No, I don't think so. What am I going to say? "You're being a jerk, down vote!" doesn't add anything to the conversation either and would deserve a downvote as well.

You can disagree with this approach, but if you downvote someone and then respond, your saying one of two things:

Your comment instigated further discussion on my part, but I don't want other people to read it, so I will downvote simply because I disagree.

Or...

Your comment isn't helping to further the discussion of this topic, but I'm going to respond anyways by telling and as a result create a comment that also doesn't advance the discussion.

I understand what you're saying, but the problem is that a vast and growing majority of downvotes cannot possibly be interpreted as "this doesn't contribute anything". Votes are being used like they would be used in an election. I'm for or against this. And that's just not good enough in my view.

No, because there is a sensible default interpretation of an upvote, which would be to repeat the statement. There is no such default interpretation of a downvote and that's why a downvote needs an explanation if none has been given so far. A downvote implies a different opinion and I want to know what that opinion is.

Downvoting isn't a slap in my face, but downvoting without telling me why is.

[Edit: You're right that I phrased my parent comment badly]

And by the way, I did not call you "not being worthy to be intelligent human being". Quite the contrary. I implied that you are in fact an intelligent human being and that such behaviour is not worthy of you.

I use windows 7 on a daily basis and I enjoy it! And I bet it's made with visual studio.

I totally forgot about Windows somehow, I use it on a daily base too and I'm very happy with it :)

That may not be a safe assumption.

But it's a correct one. Razzle is used internally for building the kernel and drivers, but the majority (I believe?) of the userspace is done using VS.

I heard from a former Windows team member that Source Insight was popular a few years ago, but things have probably changed.

You simply deserved to loose that domain. The lybian tld has their own set rules, you didn't obey to their TOS, so you loose your domain. If they contacted you or not, is completely irrelevant.

And I guess that they did contact you, but if you would acknowledge it now, it would come out that you were lying big from the start.

Not wanting to sound too negative, but sometimes it's better not to have a job at a kcik-ass startup.

The author also commented/wrote in the past that he endured burn out multiple times and is constantly working >10 hours a day.

I work a lot by choice. And getting burnt out was a problem of learning to use my time effectively. Now that I have more self-discipline and force myself to take breaks on a regular schedule (and not work when I'm not feeling it), I don't burn out anymore.

Could you shed more light on aspects of your self-discipline while being an early employee at a startup?

They could sue you for copyright infringment if they wanted.

And allowing google to index your "stolen" content pages is just outrageous. You don't own that content.

Then we could sue Google for copyright infringement for caching our pages, I guess... Why would we not allow Google to cache it? Each cached page has a great big box on top saying that this is the historious version of the cache and linking to the original site...

Example: http://cache.historious.net/cached/515865/

There's a huge difference between what Google is doing and what you're doing.

1) Google is caching pages for a specific purpose and ensuring that they aren't cached/scraped by others:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/robots.txt

By not excluding robots, you're opening yourself to all kinds of situations where you are responsible for draining revenue from the owner of the content, which leaves you liable to lawsuits. By contrast, the way that Google caches content and their rules surrounding it do not generally harm the copyright owner.

2) Google honors all robots.txt, no-archive meta-tags, and other indications that the author doesn't want the page to be cached. Is historious doing the same?

1) We do exclude robots now, yes. 2) historious doesn't spider websites, it only saves the pages the users give us. It's the same as a user deciding to make a backup of a webpage on their computer...

"It's the same as a user deciding to make a backup of a webpage on their computer..."

... and then publishing it on the Internet.

(This is not meant to be snarky or to imply opposition to your product at all. I think there is a meaningful difference between saving to a computer and saving to a web-accessible, apparently globally readable website.

Isn't it a users responsibility to obey copyright restrictions in this case, given that we never publish content unless the user does it? It's basically the same situation as hosting a website, if you upload and publish a copyrighted page, is the host responsible?

In my opinion, those two cases are not similar. I doubt that this type of automatic caching/publishing would have any protection under the DMCA safe-harbor laws unless you're making it clear to users what they're doing (I'm not a user of the service, so maybe you already are).

If I understand correctly, the users of your site are simply bookmarking pages. You are then caching it, storing it, and publishing it with a world-readable URL. There are many ways that you could provide the same experience to the user without making the cached page publicly accessible.

If you were to give users the option to make specific bookmarks world-readable - and you provided a disclaimer explaining that they should not make copyrighted material world-readable - then it might be different. But that's probably something you should discuss with an attorney.

Ah, no, our users cache pages, but if they want the cache world-readable, they need to explicitly click the "publish" link.

Thank you for the information, I'll talk to our lawyer about it just to be safe.

I wanted to let you know that I didn't mean to disappear without responding, but that sounddust expressed what I was thinking already so I don't have much to add. I did not know that the world-readable bit was opt-in; I think that's a good start, and I'm glad you're getting legal advice on this topic.

Ah, that's the nature of online commenting! Thank you for your concern, we'll talk to a lawyer to clarify this (perhaps in the ToS).

Thanks again!

I thought you were european? The DMCA safe-harbor laws don't apply to you.

I am, I'm in the UK. I know the DMCA safe-harbor laws don't apply, but neither does the DMCA. Copyright law is similar everywhere, however, so I just wanted to get an idea. I have a lawyer researching this right now, though. Thanks again!

That's not true.

Your copyright law is similar to the US or Israel based one, not so strict as the main european one, which is based on the napolion code and is very very strict.

I see, thank you. Our lawyer advised us to add a clause to the ToS and we, of course, take action against copyright infringement.

Thanks for the feedback!

If someone uses your service to republish a few dozen News Corp pages, then sends them the link I reckon you'll be in court before sunset.

Edit: I think it's a great idea though to save bookmarked content, just not to republish it without permission.

Indeed, what google is doing (caching a page and showing it to the user) is copyright infrigment in some countries. (e.g Belgium, ...).

There hasn't been any case against them but theoriticaly someone could sue them. Who will win is a different story.

Hmm, that's interesting... Another difference is that google is doing it by itself, whereas historious only stores pages that users specify and only publishes them when the user specifies it.

We'll have a chat with our lawyer regardless, thank you!

Google honour robots.txt.

€ not $

A week ago, he was selling up to 36000 copies a day.

Either give a reference, or you must be confusing sales and downloads.

That shows the maximum as 25000, not 36000 sales per day.

The number of copies are in Euros, and there are 1.44 US copies per Euro copy, so the number sold is 36000 US copies per day.

That's not how currency exchange rates work...

I choose to interpret your parent as a joke.

One thing working for him is that to play the survival version, you have to pay. If there was a free trial, I probably would've given that a shot and then escaped from the potential clutches of addiction. But it was paid only, so I paid. And I rarely pay for anything.

I bet it's the real transcript.