Ready to be published? LXer is read by around 350,000 individuals each month, and is an excellent place for you to publish your ideas, thoughts, reviews, complaints, etc. Do you have something to say to the Linux community?
Today, the Linux Association of Germany announced that it has received a temporary restraining order from the first-district court of Hamburg against Germany's Channel One, which was displaying the Microsoft logo when it showed the results of polls taken by Infratest dimap. In light of the "urgency" of the situation, the temporary restraining order was issued without a hearing. No one from German public television wished to make a comment.
Though it's inconsistent, I will argue as a lawyer would, assuming that a similar case had already occurred and the network won as claimed. It would go like this:
1. The intent of the law was to bar political advertising - the MS logo is not political, but commercial message.
(Not sure about this, but if the public TV has been forced as in the U.S. to take sponsorships as a funding source)
2. Under the newer rules imposed on Public TV, we are just displaying a sponsor's logo,. This is not even a commercial message, and it in no way impinges on the political process.
3. Essentially the same case has been argued previously and the precedent was set that allowed similar, non-invasive commercial displays to be shown beside our regular news reports.
Oh, you are undoubtedly correct. I doubt that this will hold up for long, but, the public perception of of it and the embarrassment and annoyance to Microsoft is priceless :)
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:
|||||
10
Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
1. The intent of the law was to bar political advertising - the MS logo is not political, but commercial message.
(Not sure about this, but if the public TV has been forced as in the U.S. to take sponsorships as a funding source)
2. Under the newer rules imposed on Public TV, we are just displaying a sponsor's logo,. This is not even a commercial message, and it in no way impinges on the political process.
3. Essentially the same case has been argued previously and the precedent was set that allowed similar, non-invasive commercial displays to be shown beside our regular news reports.
4. We need the cash!