Oh my God, shut the fuck up, you guys.

I...can't disagree with this.

Yes, you're right, obviously. I had a brain fart and forgot that ties were worth 1.

US is +1, Portugal is -4. They'd have to score 5 (assuming the US pull a 0-0 tie with Germany) to pull even with the US.

Also he has an ugly face.

I don't generally believe marketing, I believe experiences, and trusted recounts of those who experience it as well.

There's been plenty of concept workups that show VR could have a massive use base outside of video games, but I will admit that they are just concepts. I'll also admit that expecting the general public to adopt VR headsets as readily as they would, say, a TV or a laptop is a long stretch, but still possible. I agree…

Hype has been generated primarily because of the dev kits and because of the advancements made in such a short time period. I think in what, 2 years, they went from a clunky, uncomfortable model that struggled to support 720p to a more streamlined, much better model that handily displays 1080p.

Its funny how much perspective changes in a short time.

Theoretically, yes.

*I'm 73% sure she's American, actually...

Right, even the domain name could've been enough to trigger this. Except I don't know why they waited 8 years...

This, basically. I'm only supposed the C&D was even sent was probably because the site had garnered enough attention through ads and such.

They didn't even have to do anything with her. Just a 5 second cut of a face reveal or something right before the credits. Hell, do it like a movie and make it post-credits.

From what I understand, its a stupid clause as part of trademark law where if someone is using your brand/trademark and you don't contest it, then you basically lose the rights to it; like a weird "prior art" concept.

Is there an entire newspaper, with ads, dedicated to discussing,IKEA products, with IKEA right in the title, yet not approved or affiliated with IKEA in any way?

It was brought up as a possibility in a different thread. Potentially valid, though I doubt that was IKEA's focus here.

Please read up on trademark law some more. This site isn't dedicated to discussing any particular product or brand, its a tech blog. Vastly different from a site dedicated to a single brand, and then making ad revenue because of it. IKEA's options are to either demand they stop (which they did) or work out some sort…

Yes, but Gizmodo is not a site dedicated to the detailed usage (and potential mis-usage) of IKEA-branded products, which IKEA may find themselves liable for were a catastrophic injury to occur.

The reason that site could be taken down (and the solution the founder used to keep it up) was because the founder was profiting (ad revenue) off of a copyrighted/trademarked name, in this case "IKEA."