Which fallacy? You neither name nor justify your claim that I have committed one. Are you not interested in a discussion of the issue? Or just not interested if someone disagrees with your own view?
It is easy to point at something and say "that's wrong". It is more difficult to formulate a reasoned, coherent argument supporting your position. You're certainly not obligated to do the later, but without doing so your accusations amount to little more than childish foot stomping.
He's the one in charge.(assuming you mean the president?) He only had to get his own permission, and I supposes he granted it to himself. The only other permission he needed was granted to him in 2008, and then again just a few days ago. Sounds like you didn't vote that way, but that doesn't change his authority in this. These seals did not get permission. I can't speak at a conference, much less take an outside paid consulting job, without permission where I work. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that the military issues a formal reprimand when their soldiers act similarly against protocol.
Without permission. That is the key here. And they aren't getting "shit-canned" or fired. They're having a letter of reprimand put in their file. That means long-term advancement prospects are very small.
Where I work, which is not anything military or sensitive, I would face similar penalties if I had any type of outside employment or consulting without permission. I hardly see this punishment for a violation of protocol--in the military, where such things are understood to be serious-- as unreasonable.
I think we're in agreement here. I don't think Techdirt is disputing this aspect of TM law, only that it is a weakness and inconsistency with its ostensible purpose.
For my own part, although I agree with TD's general argument, I wonder if other bodies of law might not be more appropriate to this sort of issue. For example, if General Mills decided to weaken the Cheerios brand by replacing substituting the current package contents with Fruit Loops while leaving the packaging the same, that should be their choice. However, if they wanted to make a Cheerios brand box of Moth Balls, that would be both damaging to their brand and a strong potential risk for confused customers, and should not be allowed, and indeed the FDA might have some jurisdiction over mandating corrective action.
With this Pyrex case, I'm not sure what that other regulating agency or body of law would be, but neither am I sure that Trademark law is the best place for it either. What I do believe is that the inconsistent use of the Pyrex mark is irresponsible.
A trademark can apply to a product. Pyrex was not the company, Corning, it was one of their product lines. iPods are not the company, Apple is.
Otherwise, what you see as a mistake, I see as the main point of the argument: The premise is that the purpose of trademark law (in part) is to protect customers from potentially inferior products that are presented in a way that confuses the consumer about their origin.
Given this premise, techdirt is saying that it is inconsistent for the law to allow companies to use trademarks in a way that causes consumer confusion.
It is a pretty straightforward if-then statement: If part of the purpose of trademark regulation is to avoid dangerous confusion for consumers, then trademark law should regulate trademark uses by the trademark owner that may cause that same type of confusion.
To this, you might respond, "But it was only ever the purpose of trademark law to regulate the actions of those who do not own the relevant trademark. The confusion is seeks to avoid is the confusion created competitors, not the trademark holder"
Perhaps this is true-- I am not familiar with that body of law. However, if this is your counter claim, then again I would say that this is the exact argument of techdirt. The underlying premise is not, "dangerous confusion caused by a competitor is bad", but instead, "dangerous confusion is bad."
Therefore, it does not matter if the confusion is caused by a competitor or the trademark owner. Even if trademark law does not currently allow for regulating trademark usage by the owner, in order for it to be logically consistent with its original purpose, it should be concerned with any use of a trademark that could cause dangerous confusion.
I broiled steak in "pyrex" glassware. It scared me (almost literally) pissless when I took it out of the oven an placed it on a granite counter top, at which point the whole think shattered, sending glass shards in a 360-degree radius.
Luckily, I was not injured, only extremely surprised, and confused, until I googled "pyrex shattered" and found that what I thought was Pyrex was in fact "pyrex"
While this is true in a limited sense of recipes as a list of ingredients, this is not often the case in the context of an entire recipe complete with instructions as found in a cookbook: The description of the recipe, along with the instructions/explanation for prepping the dish, may be covered by copyright. http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html
So, death penalty for the old ladies, but only if they're copying out the part that reads something like "be sure to sift the flower slowly to ensure proper blending and smoothness of the dough"
Hey folks, I just took a rock out of my garden and isolated it from the ground, so I'm about to register a patent against it. All you fuckers living on earth, touching the ground, get the hell off! It's all mine, bitches, and you're violating it!
Ditto for kids. My kids is currently isolated from the others (only child, currently at home) Patenting him will make all the kids belong to me... and I'm hungry.