io9 
Enter your username and password.
San Francisco, 3:55 PM
Sun Nov 8
11 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors: tips@io9.com
Editor-in-Chief:
Annalee Newitz | Email
News Editor:
Charlie Jane Anders | Email
Associate Editor:
Meredith Woerner | Email
Assistant Editor:
Lauren Davis | Email
Weekend Editor:
Graeme McMillan | Email
Contributors:
Joshua Glenn
Stephen Goldmeier | Email
Ed Grabianowski | Email
Austin Grossman
Paul Hogan | Email
Lauren Davis | Email
Chris Hsiang | Email
Lynn Peril | Email
Ann VanderMeer
Alasdair Wilkins | Email
Graphic Designer:
Stephanie Fox | Email
Interns:
Tim Barribeau | Email
Julia Carusillo | Email
Alex Eichler | Email
Cyriaque Lamar | Email
Caitlin Petrakovitz | Email
Mary Ratliff | Email
Josh Snyder | Email
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
08/10/09
08/10/09
08/10/09
08/10/09
08/10/09
My guess here, then, is twofold: First, the owners of "The Terminators" would probably argue that the name is not the same, and that there have been other marks in the media which are also similar that have not provoked a trademark defense suit (DC's Deathstroke the Terminator, for one), so why are they getting all this fuss? Also, I vaguely, vaguely, vaguely remember that there was a case that established precedent for the case that single descriptive words have a significantly higher bar than more complex or unique marks, but I don't remember the criteria for how that applies.
Second, I would guess that the owners of the Terminator marks are sitting in their offices going "Well, if we sue them, they get free advertising, and all WE can get is to force them to change the name of a movie that will gross less than we spent on McG's hairdresser."
These guys are sitting in a very, very narrow gray area in trademark law - if they do anything more than what they've done in this direction, whoever currently owns the rights to the Terminator marks will crush them like a bug, but as long as they don't make any more noise, it's probably too much trouble to nail them to the wall.
08/10/09
There must be some legal loophole - I have heard of many other knock off films - one called "Alienz", another called "Alien Predator", you can probably guess correctly what larger budget films they are knocking off. I have never seen any of those films, their target market probably are people not familiar with the "real" films and buy/rent them out of confusion.
08/10/09
08/10/09
08/10/09
Though Sam getting stuck in prison is a bit silly, if he could shapeshift into a tiny owl he surely can morph into a cat or something and simply slink away to freedom.
08/10/09
I guess i will continue to get my SciFi fixes, from other networks and movie channels, as the network claiming to be SciFi continues to be utterly pathetic. What a waste of a network. I really hate them.. How can we make our disdain know to them?
08/10/09
That's bitter (and true)!!
08/10/09
SighFeh Execubot 2: Interested?
SighFeh Intern: It would be a great idea. We could use it as a replacement for BSG. A flagship show for the network!!
SighFeh Execubot 1 & 2 *blank stare*
SighFeh Intern: Uh, I'll shut up now.
SightFeh Execubot 1: We could get the Sarah Conner Chronicles.
SighFeh Execubot 2: Too expensive. We'd have to pay for writers and SFX, especially those fucking ingrates. Fucking writers and their motherfucking vision. No, we'll just to the Straight To Video Well. Those geeks won't know the difference. It's all robots and guns, right?
08/10/09
08/10/09
Yes I am, but, surprisingly, not about SCC (it was an interesting show, but not a big fan.)
More at the awful choices the MBAs at SighFeh makes. It's that the MBAs running it don't really give a shit about SF.
08/10/09
08/10/09
The same has happened to the Discovery channel; what used to be a home for science and nature documentaries now seems to be all about idiots who build motorcycles . . . . . .
I am certain there is a market for television that would deliver quality Science and Science Fiction programming.
Anyway, lets all continue to call it the SciFi channel . . . . that'll piss those MBA-types off - they'll demand their marketing wizards explain why their brilliant re-branding vision failed . . . . .
08/10/09
Hey, I'm from Canada City, too, but I'm a frequent visitor to US America so I'm familiar with SighFeh.
Ever since CHUM got bought out by CTV, Space's been getting dumber. The same said CTV that dropped B5 for the Joey Lawrence Show and produced the atrocious "The Starlost."