<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;candy&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 1 Nov 2012 17:00:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>DailyDirt: Nothing To Fear, Maybe</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Ho</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090508/2313164812/dailydirt-nothing-to-fear-maybe.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090508/2313164812/dailydirt-nothing-to-fear-maybe.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101028/10471511637/turns-out-the-evil-halloween-candy-poisoners-was-just-fud-that-got-you-to-buy-prepackaged-candy.shtml">urban legend</a> about poisoned candy on Halloween has pushed parents away from handing out home-made treats -- even though the realistic odds of finding dangerous treats is vanishingly small. Still, there are some crazy people out there, so maybe it's better safe than sorry. Just know that getting hit by a car while crossing the street is a far more frequent occurrence on Halloween....

<ul>

<li> <a title="http://www.udel.edu/soc/faculty/best/site/halloween.html" href="http://bit.ly/T8eAQY">Joel Best has been investigating Halloween Sadism reports since 1985, and while he can't prove a negative (ie. that no kids have ever been sadistically poisoned by Halloween candy), the evidence for any widespread Halloween threat to children is pretty thin.</a> The last update for this study was done in 2010, and 1982 was a particularly bad year for poisoned candy scares. But since the mid-80s, there haven't been more than 2 reported incidents per Halloween -- and so far, follow-up investigations have only found evidence of hoaxes. [<a href="http://www.udel.edu/soc/faculty/best/site/halloween.html">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://murderpedia.org/male.O/o1/obryan-ronald-clark.htm" href="http://bit.ly/VEef8G">Timothy O'Bryan was actually killed by a cyanide-laced pixie stick in 1974.</a> However, the murderer was the boy's own father who had taken out a $60,000 life insurance policy for his son and was later convicted and executed for killing him. [<a href="http://murderpedia.org/male.O/o1/obryan-ronald-clark.htm">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/02/razor-in-halloween-candy_n_1072804.html" href="http://huff.to/QV2TNG">Last year, there was at least one report of a razor found in a Reese's peanut butter cup by a father in New Mexico.</a> Chocolate and peanut butter are two great tastes that taste great together, but razors are not part of that recipe. [<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/02/razor-in-halloween-candy_n_1072804.html">url</a>]</li>

</ul>


If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/stumblethru:www.techdirt.com" href="http://bit.ly/fagV8c">Techdirt post</a>.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090508/2313164812/dailydirt-nothing-to-fear-maybe.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090508/2313164812/dailydirt-nothing-to-fear-maybe.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090508/2313164812/dailydirt-nothing-to-fear-maybe.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>urls-we-dig-up</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090508/2313164812</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 22 Nov 2011 13:54:59 PST</pubDate>
<title>Tootsie Roll Suing Footzyrolls Over Trademark</title>
<dc:creator>Timothy Geigner</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111121/12234916866/tootsie-roll-suing-footzyrolls-over-trademark.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111121/12234916866/tootsie-roll-suing-footzyrolls-over-trademark.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Trademark is one of the few intellectual property laws left that I think generally serves its original purpose. For the uninitiated, trademark was originally created to avoid customer confusion over branding, thus keeping the buyer from deceit and harm at the vicious hands of fake goods. And, while trademarks can be abused, such as when Nintendo trademarked a phrase <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101110/16065611793/publicity-stunt-on-like-donkey-kong-after-nintendo-files-trademark-for-it-s-on-like-donkey-kong.shtml">it didn't coin</a> for publicity purposes, their existence hovers on the border of benign.
<br /><br />
Enter Tootsie Roll, the popular candy product that made a name for itself by being thrown at you in every holiday parade you ever attended. They've decided to take <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2011/11/18/smallbusiness/tootsie_roll_footzy_roll/index.htm">bold action against two ladies selling shoes</a>, which they cleverly named Footzyrolls. Via CNN:
<blockquote><i>
"According to the lawsuit filed in federal court in Illinois, Rollashoe, which makes rollable ballet slippers called Footzyrolls, is infringing on the brand name of Chicago-based Tootsie Roll. Tootsie Roll, which made $521 million in sales last year, alleged that the $2 million Footzyrolls brand will confuse and "deceive" consumers into thinking that the shoes are associated with Tootsie Roll's portfolio of products."
</i></blockquote>
Now, in fairness to Tootsie Roll, I can't tell you how many times I went searching in my house for a tasty treat and ended up gnawing on my shoes. Wait...no, that was the dog, who I happen to have named "Moron In A Hurry". Actually, I'm having trouble wondering how either of these companies is in each other's industry stratosphere. Footzyrolls are ballet slippers and a quick perusal of the Tootsie Roll site offers nothing in the way of footwear. And really, who outside of the New York Jets coaching staff is going to think feet are a sweet treat to be munched upon?
<br /><br />
In all, this smacks of a legal department with a tad too much time on its hands, particularly with Tootsie Roll requesting "damages" be paid by the startup footwear company. Rollashoe is fighting back, though the company's lawyer notes the collateral damage: <blockquote><i>"'Tootsie Roll is flexing its muscle. This case could now proceed for another year. It will cost the Caplans a lot of money. It could kill their business,' he said."</i> </blockquote>And thank God for that, for what a pitiful sight it would make to walk down the street and see morons hurrying everywhere, chewing not on the chocolate goodness that is a Tootsie Roll, but on the soles of their sneakers instead.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111121/12234916866/tootsie-roll-suing-footzyrolls-over-trademark.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111121/12234916866/tootsie-roll-suing-footzyrolls-over-trademark.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111121/12234916866/tootsie-roll-suing-footzyrolls-over-trademark.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>sweet-feet?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111121/12234916866</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 2 Dec 2010 02:09:20 PST</pubDate>
<title>More Extremely Silly Trademark Lawsuits: Mars vs. Hershey Over Totally Different Looking Wrappers</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101201/00014612071/more-extremely-silly-trademark-lawsuits-mars-vs-hershey-over-totally-different-looking-wrappers.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101201/00014612071/more-extremely-silly-trademark-lawsuits-mars-vs-hershey-over-totally-different-looking-wrappers.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A <i>ton</i> of people have been submitting variations on this story of how candy company Hershey is suing candy company Mars, claiming that Mars' new Dove brand of chocolate and peanut butter candies has packaging that <a href="http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2010/11/hershey_co_sues_competitor_mar.html" target="_blank">looks too much like Hershey's Reese's Peanut Butter Cups</a>.  Most of the stories I saw didn't have any actual images to show, but the link here has the following two images:
<center>
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/6hpIl.jpg" width=250 />
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/JghGB.jpg" width=250 />
</center>
And, similar to the recent legal spat we covered concerning <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101119/02382211937/beverage-company-sues-anheuser-busch-over-totally-different-looking-can-design.shtml">beer cans</a>, the wrappers look like they have two totally different designs.  Given both of these cases happened in such close proximity, it does make you wonder if consumer goods companies are getting much more aggressive in trying to claim any package that has some incredibly superficial similarities now represents trademark infringement.
<br><br>
<b>Update</b>: As pointed out in the comments, Hershey's has a couple of newer packages that do appear a bit more similar, but still pretty different:
<center>
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/sTu6e.png" width=250 />
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/8kW4x.png" width=250 />
</center><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101201/00014612071/more-extremely-silly-trademark-lawsuits-mars-vs-hershey-over-totally-different-looking-wrappers.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101201/00014612071/more-extremely-silly-trademark-lawsuits-mars-vs-hershey-over-totally-different-looking-wrappers.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101201/00014612071/more-extremely-silly-trademark-lawsuits-mars-vs-hershey-over-totally-different-looking-wrappers.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>you-put-your-chocolate-in-my-trademark-lawyer</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101201/00014612071</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 29 Oct 2010 18:25:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Turns Out The Evil Halloween Candy Poisoners Was Just FUD That Got You To Buy Prepackaged Candy</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101028/10471511637/turns-out-the-evil-halloween-candy-poisoners-was-just-fud-that-got-you-to-buy-prepackaged-candy.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101028/10471511637/turns-out-the-evil-halloween-candy-poisoners-was-just-fud-that-got-you-to-buy-prepackaged-candy.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ When I moved into my current home a few years back, I discovered (a few weeks later) on Halloween that one of my neighbors is a professional choclatier, when a pair of insanely delicious home-made caramel candy apples were delivered to my house as a "reverse trick-or-treat."  It was definitely a nice "welcome to the neighborhood" moment.  However, even though I knew I could trust these apples, it immediately brought me back to when I was a kid, when there were all these big scary news stories about people poisoning candy and putting razors in caramel candy apples for neighborhood trick-or-treaters.  I remember my parents followed the evening news' recommendations of immediately taking the bags of candy we came home with and to spread them out on the kitchen table to go through them looking for exposed candy or loose wrappers to dump in the garbage.  It was serious business.  These days, many places are so worried about the scary poisoning/razor-blading neighbors that they've officially tried to move trick-or-treating to local businesses away from residences.
<br /><br />
I'd never really thought much about the scare stories and whether or not they true.  When I was a kid, I assumed of course they were true.  It was being reported on the news, and I think my school sent home paper warnings as well.  How could it not be true?  However, Samira Kawash, who is apparently an expert in "candy," is writing a series of posts about Halloween, and one of them notes that the whole story of poisoned/razor-bladed Halloween candy from sadistic neighbors <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/food/archive/2010/10/the-meaning-of-halloween-candy-psychopath-stories/65281/" target="_blank">is almost entirely a myth</a>.  The number of children really harmed by such things? "Approximately zero."
<blockquote><i>
It turns out that the Halloween sadist is about 1 percent fact and 99 percent myth. One California dentist in 1959 did pass out candy-coated laxatives, and some kids got bad stomachaches. But instances over the past 40 years where children were allegedly harmed by tainted candy have invariably fallen apart under scrutiny. In some cases, there was evidence that someone (a family member) was attempting to harm a particular child under cover of Halloween. In other cases, poisoning which had another cause was misattributed to candy. Not surprisingly, the myth created its own reality: As the stories of Halloween tampering spread, some kids got the idea of faking tampering as a sort of prank. Despite all evidence to the contrary, the myth persists.
</i></blockquote>
Of course, in retrospect, this makes sense.  We see stories all the time these days of the press (and sometimes groups of parents) creating a moral panic around some dubious piece of information about "harm to children" that never seems to stand up to any serious scrutiny.  But, as Kawash notes, "the myth persists."  And, while they may not be the reason the myth started or persisted, the main beneficiaries of the myth were the big candy companies, who actually have been linked to health problems at industrial food processing plants:
<blockquote><i>
Wrappers are like candy condoms: Safe candy is candy that is covered and sealed. And not just any wrapper will do. Loose, casual, cheap wrappers, the kind of wrappers one might find on locally produced candies or non-brand-name candies, are also liable to send candy to Halloween purgatory. The close, tight factory wrapper says "sealed for your protection." And the recognized brand name on the wrapper also lends a reassuring aura of corporate responsibility and accountability. It's a basic axiom of consumer faith: The bigger the brand, the safer the candy.
<br /><br />
Ironic, since we know that the most serious food dangers are those that originate from just the kind of large-scale industrial food processing environments that also bring us name-brand, mass-market candies. Salmonella, E. coli, and their bacterial buddies lurking in bagged salads and pre-formed hamburger patties are real food dangers; home-made cookies laced with ground glass are not. 
</i></blockquote>
Kawash notes that all of this has come at the cost of good, home-made treats, which actually may have been safer for kids.  So, as we hit Halloween weekend, I'm sure you'll have plenty of opportunities for eating processed candy options, but perhaps it's time to put an end to the old myth.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101028/10471511637/turns-out-the-evil-halloween-candy-poisoners-was-just-fud-that-got-you-to-buy-prepackaged-candy.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101028/10471511637/turns-out-the-evil-halloween-candy-poisoners-was-just-fud-that-got-you-to-buy-prepackaged-candy.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101028/10471511637/turns-out-the-evil-halloween-candy-poisoners-was-just-fud-that-got-you-to-buy-prepackaged-candy.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>check-the-wrappers</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101028/10471511637</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 22 Feb 2010 09:06:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>School Spying Scandal Gets Even More Bizarre: Student In Question Was Disciplined For Eating Candy</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100221/2118128243.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100221/2118128243.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The story of the school district that supposedly <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100218/1056378228.shtml">spied on some students</a> keeps getting odder and odder.  While the school district claims that it used the secret remote webcam activation technology <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100219/1418438242.shtml">42 times</a> -- and only to track down stolen or lost laptops -- it still hasn't explained why this particular student was punished.  He claims his laptop was not stolen and there was no reason to turn it on.  The school claims that the assistant principal who supposedly confronted the student with an image from the webcam is being unfairly tarnished.
<br><br>
But here's where it gets even odder.  Apparently, the "improper act" that the student was disciplined for was an accusation of either drug use or drug selling.  For what?  Well, the <a href="http://reason.com/blog/2010/02/20/lower-pervian-school-district" target="_blank">image showed the student with Mike & Ikes candies</a>, which do have a passing resemblance to pills, but (last we checked) do not appear to be controlled substances.
<br><br>
Now, there certainly could be more to this story, but the school has not done a particularly good job explaining its side of things.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100221/2118128243.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100221/2118128243.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100221/2118128243.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>mike-&amp;-ikes</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100221/2118128243</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>