I doubt this is about Perfect 10 believing there to be any infringement. I guessing it's more about the free publicity that gets throw their way when they file suit against any well-known company.
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.
Given that the glassware in the video demonstrations above contained only sand, why did it appear to be boiling as the glass broke and the sand hit the granite?
Given that the glassware in the video demonstrations above contained only sand, why did it appear to be boiling as the glass broke and the sand hit the granite?
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"
Unfortunately, "Until Issues are Addressed" means "Until some of these nerds find something else to focus on and we can cram it through without notice"
Agreed-- if you add a few more geo/political perspective. Read half and synthesize a half doze different and conflicting perspectives and you'll be as close to the truth as is possible.
I don't like the way thenTSA operates for security theatre instead of actual security, and then naively, obliviously ignores their own hypocrisy and inconsistencies.
However, let's no one be surprised that the premier outlet of Russian anti-American propaganda-- Pravda-- published an op-Ed by an American criticizing a major American agency and policy.
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.
One of my senators (the other didn't respond to my email) thinks that it's because law enforcement needs tools to enforce counterfeit goods restrictions:
from Sen. Lautenberg: "The “Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property (PROTECT IP) Act of 2011” (S. 968) would give law enforcement additional tools to combat the illegal online sale of counterfeit or copyright infringing goods. Specifically, this bill would give the Attorney General the power to serve issued court orders on search engines, payment processors, advertising networks, and Internet service providers. It would allow suit against site operators, but would not allow law enforcement to block access to a site. This bill would also require plaintiffs to sue the owner or registrant of a domain name before bringing suit against a site itself."
The irony is that the one thing he says this bill won't do is "allow law enforcement to block access to a site", which is something that law enforcement (ICE) has already grabbed for itself.
Does anyone know how the Supreme Court has justified its opinions on the current length of copyright? Have they addressed how "secure for a limited time frame to Authors" is in any way upheld when the author in fact never loses it, given the Life+ model?
Yes, that's the point: Apple is saying that apps with content that can be purchased outside of the app itself, for use within the app, must also offer them for sale from within the application as well or risk banishment from the app store.
Certainly the funeral directors are trying to protect their turf-- it is an industry known for such things. I don't even doubt that this may be their only concern. However, that doesn't mean there isn't an actual issue of regulatory concern ensuring that the storage of dead bodies is done in containers that meet certain standards.
Dead bodies are pumped with all sorts of chemicals. If the containers in which they are stored are not properly constructed and sealed then those chemicals will leach out into the soil. I'm not willing to assume, absent further details, that the monks in question built theirs to the proper spec.
It's about the publicity
I doubt this is about Perfect 10 believing there to be any infringement. I guessing it's more about the free publicity that gets throw their way when they file suit against any well-known company.
To all the righthaven haters
You just don't see what excessive help & direction the court is giving them in this ruling.
Re: Re:
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.
Re: Re: Science question
ah, I missed the "wet" part. It seemed strange that sand would boil like that otherwise, and now I know that it did not. thanks.
Re:
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.
Science question
Given that the glassware in the video demonstrations above contained only sand, why did it appear to be boiling as the glass broke and the sand hit the granite?
Science question
Given that the glassware in the video demonstrations above contained only sand, why did it appear to be boiling as the glass broke and the sand hit the granite?
This happened to me
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"
(untitled comment)
Unfortunately, "Until Issues are Addressed" means "Until some of these nerds find something else to focus on and we can cram it through without notice"
Re: Re:
Agreed-- if you add a few more geo/political perspective. Read half and synthesize a half doze different and conflicting perspectives and you'll be as close to the truth as is possible.
(untitled comment)
I don't like the way thenTSA operates for security theatre instead of actual security, and then naively, obliviously ignores their own hypocrisy and inconsistencies.
However, let's no one be surprised that the premier outlet of Russian anti-American propaganda-- Pravda-- published an op-Ed by an American criticizing a major American agency and policy.
(untitled comment)
What, I can't both support patents and support kidnapping and murder of children?
(untitled comment)
re: recipes are not protected under copyright law
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"
It's all mine!
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.
(untitled comment)
One of my senators (the other didn't respond to my email) thinks that it's because law enforcement needs tools to enforce counterfeit goods restrictions:
from Sen. Lautenberg: "The “Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property (PROTECT IP) Act of 2011” (S. 968) would give law enforcement additional tools to combat the illegal online sale of counterfeit or copyright infringing goods. Specifically, this bill would give the Attorney General the power to serve issued court orders on search engines, payment processors, advertising networks, and Internet service providers. It would allow suit against site operators, but would not allow law enforcement to block access to a site. This bill would also require plaintiffs to sue the owner or registrant of a domain name before bringing suit against a site itself."
The irony is that the one thing he says this bill won't do is "allow law enforcement to block access to a site", which is something that law enforcement (ICE) has already grabbed for itself.
(untitled comment)
Does anyone know how the Supreme Court has justified its opinions on the current length of copyright? Have they addressed how "secure for a limited time frame to Authors" is in any way upheld when the author in fact never loses it, given the Life+ model?
Re:
If you write it, I'll create a cartoon series centered around a lovable idiot names Marcus
Re: Kindle doesn't do in-app purchases
Yes, that's the point: Apple is saying that apps with content that can be purchased outside of the app itself, for use within the app, must also offer them for sale from within the application as well or risk banishment from the app store.
Perhaps not so cut & dry
Certainly the funeral directors are trying to protect their turf-- it is an industry known for such things. I don't even doubt that this may be their only concern. However, that doesn't mean there isn't an actual issue of regulatory concern ensuring that the storage of dead bodies is done in containers that meet certain standards.
Dead bodies are pumped with all sorts of chemicals. If the containers in which they are stored are not properly constructed and sealed then those chemicals will leach out into the soil. I'm not willing to assume, absent further details, that the monks in question built theirs to the proper spec.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Publisher? Who cares?
"That Oscar Wilde fellow has always shown himself to be quite the dolt." - Oscar Wilde