timeline (no, not the “canon” timeline, the “official” one, which includes ALL officially-licensed Trek tie-ins, not just what’s included at the whim of the producers).
There are a few significant differences in the timeline, notably in the early 24th century and from the point of ‘s fifth season onward.
Shaun, on the other hand, could get some style tips from Sasha to work into some of his big air boarding maneuvers.
Now that we’ve settled the question of whether monkeys can own copyright, we can move on to the intergalactic portion of our copyright primer.
I’ve never understood the whole “Star Trek” phenomenon; personally, the whole genre leaves me cold. I certainly admire the achievement; telling a story that touches that many people is an accomplishment, in any age.
And it’s one of those always-fascinating phenomena that, like Catholicism or the English language or the Internet, somehow reaches that point where the positive feedback loops take over, and it becomes more compelling to people because it is more compelling to (other) people.
In the Version 2.0 timeline, a more consistent application of the TNG system has been retroactively applied throughout Trek history, dating back to the foundation of the Federation in early May 2160.
The TNG episode “The Neutral Zone” established that episode to be set in 2364, but not the specific date.
It allows persons to check whether a specific domain name% is still available or not and to obtain information related to% the registration records of existing domain names.%% EURid cannot, under any circumstances, be held liable in case the% stored information would prove to be wrong, incomplete or not% accurate in any sense.%% By submitting a query you agree not to use the information made% available to:%% - allow, enable or otherwise support the transmission of unsolicited,% commercial advertising or other solicitations whether via email or% otherwise;% - target advertising in any possible way;%% - to cause nuisance in any possible way to the registrants by sending% (whether by automated, electronic processes capable of enabling% high volumes or other possible means) messages to them.%% Without prejudice to the above, it is explicitly forbidden to extract,% copy and/or use or re-utilise in any form and by any means% (electronically or not) the whole or a quantitatively or qualitatively% substantial part of the contents of the WHOIS database without prior% and explicit permission by EURid, nor in any attempt hereof, to apply% automated, electronic processes to EURid (or its systems).%% You agree that any reproduction and/or transmission of data for% commercial purposes will always be considered as the extraction of a% substantial part of the content of the WHOIS database.%% By submitting the query you agree to abide by this policy and accept% that EURid can take measures to limit the use of its WHOIS services% in order to protect the privacy of its registrants or the integrity% of the database.%% The EURid WHOIS service on port 43 (textual whois) never% discloses any information concerning the registrant.% Registrant and onsite contact information can be obtained through use of the% webbased whois service available from the EURid website WHOIS Domain: Registrant: NOT DISCLOSED! It goes on to list dozens of specific infringing elements, ranging from specific characters, what they look like, what they wear, particular plot points, etc.[The complaint, starting at page 10, illustrates many of these with photographs.] It’s also unusual in that the defendants, unlike the ordinary fan film purveyors who fold up their tent when confronted with the legal army commanded by Paramount and CBS and the prospect of statutory damage awards in the millions of dollars, have retained Winston & Strawn, a large and very well-regarded litigation firm, to represent them . Many of the infringement counts (based on similarities in costume design, backdrops, logos, and the like) look pretty straightforward to me, though I’ll be interested to see what arguments the defendants advance in support of their borrowings.Made sense to me — but not to the Federal Circuit, which ruled in Oracle’s favor back in 2014.So I’ll also be curious to see whether this infringement count, too, survives in any form.