If agents for Russia or China placed malware in our electricity grids, I would consider that an attack in and of itself, much the same way that placing a sleeper cell in a country is an affirmative hostile and unlawful act.

Reading between the lines, it just seems that it’s more likely that individuals in Russia or China might have left this malware, and that it’s being automatically imputed to the governments rather than there being direct evidence that Russia or China are in fact responsible for these acts. Probably the only way to responsibly charge Russia or China with these acts would be to have identified the individuals responsible for the acts themselves.  There is no mention of that.  In fact, after discussing how officials are charging China and Russia with these acts, reporter Siobhan Gorman states, “It is nearly impossible to know whether or not an attack is government-sponsored because of the difficulty in tracking true identities in cyberspace. U.S. officials said investigators have followed electronic trails of stolen data to China and Russia.”  This makes it sound like because the electronic trails originated in China and Russia, officials are saying that Russia and China are penetrating our networks. There is a big difference between Russia and China penetrating our networks and people in these countries doing so.  People are mobile. They move from place to place. Just because the penetration occurred in Russia or China doesn’t mean that the perpetrator is from there. In fact, in theory, it could be a proxy making it appear as if it was coming from these countries when it’s really occurring from somewhere else.

It’s no less scary if its rogue individuals or a gang responsible for these acts. In fact, it’s more scary. The political strategic theories of incentive and disincentives that might apply when analyzing these occurrences based on the assumption its countries themselves responsible for the acts simply don’t apply if the penetrations or attacks are being done by individuals or gangs. The game is a lot less rational, arguably. And we are more at risk then, not less.

It’s time to follow FEMA (femainfocus) and Ready.gov (readydotgov) on Twitter, although it might not help when needed most, and I am going to look into a family emergency preparadness kit that anticipates attacks on our electricity grids.

I think my kids will think sitting in one place and reading a book is a waste of time, inefficient, when you can be listening to a book and working out at the same time, etc.

I don’t know what I would do without sites like audible.com, but my favorite by far is Talking Issues, primarily because you can get the digital audio edition of The Economist, word-for-word.  I love the magazine, and you can even use Delicious and Yahoo! Buzz when reading online!

while i’m not commenting or opining on monster cable’s position, the article did make me think about how lawyers practicing tm law will often use the doctrine that a mark holder has a duty to police to justify an aggressive tm program to his or her clients, probably because it justifies legal fees. the problem often is that lawyers will teach their clients to analyze tm law based on the degree of similarity of the marks with no genuine analysis of whether there is in fact, a likelihood of confusion in the marketplace, or even for a famous mark, whether there is a likelihood that the mark at issue will in fact, whittle away at the distinctiveness of the mark holder or tarnish the mark holder’s reputation.

tm holders should really look at the marketplace and genuinely see a likelihood of confusion or dilution before taking action. there are many factors that need to be evaluated by law for a reason. tm holders only have a duty to police against a likelihood of confusion. the mere possibility of it is not enough. the irony is that woodenlike or robotic assertions of infringement are likely to actually tarnish the mark holder’s reputation rather than to protect it. trademark holders are often better off focusing on providing the best products or services to build the distinctiveness of their mark, not trying to build a monopoly in the brand name. that said, when there is a genuine likelihood of confusion, tm holders have a duty to police their mark from a consumer protection standpoint. and famous mark holders should make sure their marks aren’t being blurred or tarnished to protect their goodwill. but overreaching is amateurish and unnecessary. if you have a trademark issue, seek the advice of a legal expert, not just any lawyer. they are the ones who can give an opinion on whether there is infringement. a lot of lawyers will just look at the legal standards without actually forming an opinion in fact. it doesn’t really matter if you can make arguments in favor of infringement. what matters is whether you believe in your arguments. whether you believe there is in fact a problem that needs to be redressed.