Posts Tagged ‘monopoly’
Laura Chavez did not pass go. She did not collect $200.
Instead, Santa Fe County Sheriff’s deputies took the 60-year-old directly to jail after they say she repeatedly stabbed her boyfriend Wednesday after arguing during a game of Monopoly.
Police responded to a stabbing call at 1:21 a.m. Wednesday in the Casa Villita Apartments…Deputy Kurt Whyte arrived at the apartment where he says he found the 48-year-old male stabbing victim, “bleeding heavily from his head and right wrist area.”
Chavez, who police say admitted stabbing the man with a kitchen knife, was arrested and charged with aggravated battery on a household member with a deadly weapon, battery upon a peace officer, assault upon a peace officer and resisting or evading a police officer…Her boyfriend, meanwhile, remained hospitalized late Wednesday but was in stable condition, according to Lt. Adan Mendoza.
According to the statement of probable cause filed for Chavez’s arrest drafted by Detective Andrew Quintana, Chavez and her boyfriend were playing a late Tuesday night game of Monopoly with her 10-year-old grandson. The young boy told police the couple began fighting because his grandma thought her boyfriend was cheating at the classic Parker Brothers game…
Investigators say they were not aware of past domestic violence calls regarding the couple, but jail records show Chavez has been booked into the Santa Fe County jail nine times since June 2006, many of which were related to violations of probation and the conditions of her release from a 2009 felony drug possession case in which she eventually received a conditional discharge.
Every aspect of life in a banana republic culture can be exciting. Even a board game can turn into an assault.
Rival wine sellers targeting overworked mothers are fighting over use of the word “Mommy” on their wine labels, according to a lawsuit filed in San Francisco federal court.
In the suit, filed on Monday, California-based winery Clos Lachance Wines asked the court to declare that its “Mommyjuice” does not violate the trademark of “Mommy’s Time Out,” which is marketed by a New Jersey distributor.
“Mommy is a generic word that they don’t have a monopoly on,” said KC Branch, an attorney who represents Clos Lachance.
The owner of “Mommy’s Time Out” declined to comment on the lawsuit.
To succeed in a trademark violation case, a brand owner must show it is likely that a rival’s mark will create confusion in the minds of consumers.
The front label of Mommyjuice features a drawing of a woman juggling a house, teddy bear and computer. The back label advises moms to “tuck your kids into bed, sit down and have a glass of Mommyjuice. Because you deserve it.” The wine is available in a white Chardonnay and a red mixed blend.
The front label of “Mommy’s Time Out,” an Italian wine sold in red and white, shows an empty chair facing a corner. A wine bottle and glass sit on a table next to the chair…
Mendelson also noted that wines with “fanciful” names have proliferated as marketers try to reach new categories of customers. In recent years, vintners have launched wines like “Fat bastard,” “Cleavage Creek” and a red wine featuring a rooster called “Big Red Pecker.”
Within the confines of market battles, one business competing in dead earnest against another – restricting yourself to the ground rules of lawyers and other idiots is a game for automatons, pedants and mutant religions.
A federal judge on Tuesday dismissed charges from a small computer maker that Apple is a monopolist because it tightly controls which computer makers build machines using its Macintosh operating system software.
With his ruling, U.S. District Judge William Alsup has handed Apple its latest victory against cloners that create and sell machines based on Apple’s software.
Psystar…was challenging Apple’s requirement that only Apple-branded devices use its software, which Psystar contends illegally ties the sale of one product to another. That’s not the case with operating system software from Microsoft or the open source Linux, which can be installed on devices from any number of manufacturers, Psystar said.
In his 16-page decision Tuesday, Alsup ruled Apple’s products don’t constitute a market to dominate. As a consequence, Apple then can’t be considered a monopolist, Alsup wrote.
Psystar is a dipshit little outfit that some people think was cobbled together by lawyers and opportunists just to sue Apple. The result was logical and pretty much expected. That still doesn’t mean that Psystar and their supporters won’t appeal and try to drag this out in an attempt to make money from the American lawsuit farm.