As others have said, it’s important to distinguish different types of intellectual property laws. A patent is protection for a process or mechanism, which doesn’t apply to the shape of the bar. I doubt that there would have been a patent, because mold-making is an ancient art, and pretty straightforward. It wouldn’t be an innovation to make an oval mold.

A copyright is protection for a tangible recording of an expressive work; writing, music, film, et cetera. It doesn’t apply to goods. It would apply to a designer’s drawing of the shape of the bar, but not the shape, nor the bar itself.

What might apply is a trademark, which is protection for the use of some distinguishing feature to identify a product or brand in the marketplace. Trademarks are supposedly about preventing consumer confusion about whom they are buying from. They arise from customary use, meaning that a product or service has to be sold with that mark for them to exist. Courts have recognized all sorts of things as trademarks: in addition to logos and names, also color schemes, shapes, even scents.

Thing is, a trademark doesn’t have to be registered with the USPTO to offer protection. Registration just means that the Office has accepted it as a trademark, so that use of it by others is presumptively an infringement. Without registering it, an entity would have to sue to get a court to issue a finding of infringement.

So hypothetically, the shape of a Dove beauty bar could be a trademark, even if it’s not currently registered with the USPTO. However, the prospects aren’t that great, IMO, because oval is a pretty common shape, and Dove distinguishes itself with the prominent bird-shaped logo more than the shape of the bar.

Right, that’s exactly the problem I have with most people who call themselves libertarian. In a nutshell, they truly believe that we all should get to do whatever we want, as long as it doesn’t affect others. Except, everything we do affects other people. Some of the ways are profound, and some are trivial. The libertarian-type people are so selfish, or solipsistic, they think that only their own judgement applies whether the effect infringes freedom it not.

We see that with vaccines: The government shouldn’t mandate what they put in their bodies. That’s infringes freedom. But they’re more than happy to spread virus into other people’s bodies, and if immuno-compromised people think that it’s hurting them, too bad. Or the libertarian types think that they should be allowed to drive the biggest brodozer available, because it doesn’t affect anybody else, and the freedom of other people who get hit and crushed under the wheels, the other drivers blinded by eye-level headlights, or the taxpayers who have to subsidize more free parking space and street maintenance, doesn’t matter.

It’s always the same pattern: Anything that stops me from doing what I want is an unreasonable infringement of freedom, and any effects I have on other people are just the reality of living in society and they should suck it up.

In about 2018, I think, a team of researchers put together a mathematical model of how markets work. What they found is that wealth just naturally accumulates to a few people. It’s inherent to how markets work, and it’s more or less at random; in their simulation runs, every person started out in an equal position.

It’s all luck. It doesn’t even take being in the right place at the right time, although that helps. Since us humans operate on narratives and just-world fallacies, it’s really easy for us to construct a post hoc story about why a certain billionaire succeeded. But it’s all luck.

(I remember that I read about this research in Scientific American, but I don’t have the link handy.)

ZFS is more than just a filesystem, it’s a fully-integrated disk management system which replaces mdadm, LVM, LUKS, nfsd, rsync, as well as the filesystem. It’s great for NAS boxes and file servers, since you can give it a big pile o’ disks, and it slices and dices, and offers simple commands to create whatever volumes you need.

Not the OC, but I think it’s a difference in definition. The U.S. thinks that things like single-payer health care are “far left,” while in the rest of the world, that’s a centrist policy. Bernie Sanders is a centrist; the Democratic Party is center-right. The far left is utterly unimaginable for Americans.

Speaking of hard water, I recently installed a water conditioner/descaler instead of replacing my dead water softener. It’s an electronic device that mounts on the water supply pipe, and uses a couple of wire coils to create an electric field that makes the calcium ions in the hard water stick to each other instead of pipes and fixtures. I was skeptical, because the description of how it works sounds a lot like many woo-woo devices that use “magnetic fields” to do… something. But I read up on water descalers, and all of the information that I found was very straightforward, listing the pro’s and con’s of descalers versus softeners.

And it works! I checked the water utility reports for the wells which serve my area, and found that they’re all “very hard,” but quite low on manganese. Therefore, I don’t mind that the minerals stay in the water; they just go down the drain instead of building up on things. It’s actually starting to dissolve the scale buildup on my faucets, slowly. No need for vinegar to have soft fabric out of the laundry, either. I like that it descales all of the water in the house, so I don’t have to bother about which is softened and which is not. It was also cheaper than a water softener, and I don’t have to buy salt regularly. Also, it’s an older house with galvanized pipes, which soft water will corrode.

Anyway, random aside on hard water.

So young men are believing that everyone except them are all in relationships and/or fucking all the time, and believing that them not doing those things makes worth less as a human being.

I just want to add that, in virtually every online discussion I’ve seen about the dynamic between men and women, if a man says something incel-ish, or otherwise not popular, there will be somebody (almost always a woman) who will fire back a retort like, “yeah, but no woman wants to be with you anyway,” (I haven’t seen it on Lemmy, which is wonderful.)

There it is: Your opinion, and by extension your worth as a person, is based on your ability to have sex. Is it any wonder that men think that, after being explicitly informed so?

On the good side, we’re much less affected by trauma, because we’re not haunted by replays of it in our minds. So there’s that. Also, we can torment visualizers with words like “moist”, and describing disgusting things that they “see” in their heads, while we’re unaffected.

Use this power only for good, or at least for a good laugh. 😉