Trademark law, from the beginning, was actually about protecting mark owners from unfair competition. The notion that trademark is intended to protect against consumer deception is more recent. This is a fact, and no matter how much Mike resists the reality, it's fundamentally true and easily verified.
Nice try (complete with insults), but your sources don't actually say what you want them to say. Notice that all the quotes you mention talk about stopping "deception." And "unfair competition" is the same exact issue. The "unfair" part about the competition is that it's designed to fool consumers. The fact that it harms both the producer and the consumer is meaningless here. The idea was to prevent consumer confusion.
It's dilution that was added late to the game, and then lawyers looked to retroactively make it look like it had always been there.
So, yeah, I guess since your sources don't actually say what you wanted them to say, you felt the need to resort to ad homs instead. Typical. But, really, doesn't it get kind of tiring to have to always do that kind of thing?
Sounds like you and the person you replied to are arguing a distinction without a difference. You're unhappy with how the meaning of theft has changed and framing matters. The OP accepts the evolution, but otherwise agrees with you.
But in recent years, cellphone companies have refused to allow callers to leave messages to a user whose phone can't be immediately reached -- despite that these messages are not even stored locally on the phone.
where the police went trigger happy on various people that fit him or his car's description without giving a warning they just opened fire.
The similarity to the suspect was "driving a pickup truck". In neither case did the vehicle match the make, model, or color of Dorner's vehicle. Dorner was a black male, and the others shot were variously female (Latino I think) and white male. Basically open season on anyone in a pickup truck who they felt like shooting at. It was apparently stormtroopers because nobody was killed. One of them wasn't even hit.
It's a little more complicated than the article points out. Trademark dilution as a legal theory has been around since at least the 1920s. States started enacting their own dilution statutes in the 1940s, and by the time you get the federal law on this a majority of states already had their own versions of the law. Part of the rationale for Congress to enact the federal statute regarding dilution (which, as I said, is a concept they didn't invent but had been around something like 70 years) was to unify the law instead of having a bunch of competing state causes of action. That's not a bad idea in and of itself (uniformity). Another rationale was that it would encourage trademark owners to invest in their marks and make them famous, but that seems pretty speculative and I'm not convinced the law has had that effect.
This helps with things like extending copyright law over and over (if it's "stealing" then it must "belong" to the copyright holder, and having copyright expire is taking something that "belongs" to them, right?) and it helps whenever they want people to make sacrifices of freedom (especially other people's freedom) in the name of controlling copyright infringement or when they want to put in levies to compensate them for all the money that is being stolen and such.
Indeed. Consider, for example, Fair Use — an absolutely critical component of copyright that must be defended and in fact expanded. With a proper understanding of what copying is and why copyright exists, fair use only makes sense — but it sounds ludicrous to say "sometimes it's okay to steal people's property for the purposes of criticism, education, transformative works, etc". Every person who buys into the idea that "copying is no different from theft" is one less person who will stand up to defend fair use, or take advantage of fair use themselves to create something great.
and since they won't release records, we're all free to speculate that records they won't reveal show the teaching staff deal drugs to students, sell them into white slavery, convince them to join ISIS..etc.etc..you get the point.
As opposed to what exactly? Just let the market sort itself out without outside interference? By this point it's pretty clear how well that tends to work, and it's generally not a good thing for the public.