Scott S.’s Techdirt Profile

bizstarz

About Scott S.




Scott S.’s Comments comment rss

  • Dec 7th, 2018 @ 12:18pm

    Re: Re: Trademark bullying works.

    Congratulations on being smarter than all the countless attorneys who know how to work with others and how to publicly advocate for their clients. Unlike you, some people don't have to hide behind a keyboard.

  • Dec 5th, 2018 @ 1:24pm

    Trademark bullying works.

    This post about the Thirsty Beasts case does a great job illustrating why "Trademark bullying works."

    But I wonder how much Thirsty Beasts and other victims of Monster Energy worked together to share info and resources?

    One of the main reasons why trademark bullying works is because so few victims or their attorneys share info and resources with others. This is largely the fault of attorneys because most are control freaks who show little interest or ability in sharing info and resources with others facing similar issues. Most also lack knowledge or interest in the court of public opinion, so their clients' cases receive little if any media coverage, and they pretty much battle and suffer in silence.

    I think it borders on legal malpractice when attorneys refuse to work with others facing similar issues, or are clueless about the court of public opinion. Most doctors who have a client facing a unique life-threatening medical condition will reach out to others who may have helpful info or resources. But most attorneys won't lift a finger to work with others, even if their client's business is facing a potentially business-killing legal battle.

  • Dec 4th, 2018 @ 7:07pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Still, this story happens to end well.

    I repeat, "You should ask Tom Schlafly how much he had to spend (in hours, dollars, lost time with family and friends, lost business and personal opportunities, plus dealing with Schlafly family quarreling), and if after all that, he believes "this story happens to end well."

    Your/my opinion doesn't matter. We likely don't know 99% of what he went through, regardless of how many resources he may have. And he still only has 24hrs a day. Only Tom can legitimately say whether or not his "story happens to end well." Let's not put words into his mouth.

  • Dec 4th, 2018 @ 4:13pm

    Re: Re: Still, this story happens to end well.

    You should ask Tom Schlafly how much he had to spend (in hours, dollars, lost time with family and friends, lost business and personal opportunities, plus dealing with Schlafly family quarreling), and if after all that, he believes "this story happens to end well."

    Would you have agreed "this story happens to end well" if Phyllis Schlafly and her son had baselessly sued Tom Schlafly claiming they owned Tom's house, and he had to spend over 6 years and 100s of 1000s of dollars to prove he owns his house, and to top it off, he didn't get any of his money back?

    I'm sure Timothy Geigner meant no harm. He's clearly strongly against trademark bullies. But it's wrong for others to say it "happens to end well" if a victim of a trademark bully is fortunate enough to possess the large amount of resources and tenacity necessary to "win" these types of cases. Unless of course their specifically quoting a victorious victim.

    Just ask any of the relative few entrepreneurs who have survived bogus legal attacks by trademark bully Entrepreneur magazine if they believe their stories "happened to end well."

    The only people who "win" in such battles are the attorneys.

  • Dec 4th, 2018 @ 11:14am

    Still, this story happens to end well.

    Tom Schlafly might strongly disagree that "this story happens to end well." This case cost Tom over 6 years of unnecessary stress and distraction, plus thousands of dollars he will never get back. It would be helpful if Tom could say what he had to spend on this fight against a trademark bully. It's likely that it was enough to pay cash for a very large home near his brewery in St. Louis for what he had to spend.

  • May 5th, 2018 @ 7:26pm

    Re: Re: Squarenuts

    "Anonymous" Dave:
    Who else is using Squarenuts for square donuts? You didn't say. But good for them. What about Apple's use of clearly descriptive / generic names such as "Pages," "Mail," or "Photos." Or Microsoft's use of "Word" and "Windows." Or the fraudsters at "trademark bully" Entrepreneur magazine using clearly generic word "entrepreneur" for title of a magazine for and about "entrepreneurs"? (and started by a serial con artist and convicted bank robber) None of these are "unique." "Dave" is also not at all "unique." But I guess that helps when you're desperate to be Anonymous. :)

  • May 5th, 2018 @ 11:25am

    Squarenuts

    Perhaps Family Express should up the zaniness by calling their "square donuts" something like Squarenuts.

  • Jan 21st, 2018 @ 11:21am

    Herb Kelleher vs Gary Kelly

    You could be right. Unfortunately, most large corporations seem to engage in some form of bullying. But you don't give any examples of Southwest having a history of bullying small businesses. My understanding is that Herb Kelleher is against and stood-up to corporate bullies. Either way, why is current CEO Gary Kelly allowing Southwest to behave this way under his watch?

  • Jan 20th, 2018 @ 11:56am

    Herb Kelleher

    From what I know of Herb Kelleher, co-founder of Southwest Airlines, this would NOT be happening if he was still running the place.

  • Dec 15th, 2017 @ 11:22am

    Re: other comic cons

    1) what specific knowledge or experience do you have with trademarks?

    2) do you disagree that "comic con" is a widely-used and generic phrase?

    3) could you afford the 100s of thousands of dollars it costs to litigate a trademark dispute through trial and possible appeals?

  • Dec 14th, 2017 @ 7:38pm

    Re: Saltcon?

    You're totally missing the point. They want, and should be able to legally use, a name that connects them with other "comic cons." Just like if they published "comic books" they wouldn't want to call them something "unique" like "Saltbooks." :)

  • Dec 14th, 2017 @ 10:10am

    Re: other comic cons

    I would NOT assume many of the numerous other comic cons will suddenly start helping Salt Lake Comic Con fight back. If these other comic cons (or their attorneys) were too apathetic or afraid before, they probably are even more so after a federal court has ruled against Salt Lake Comic Con.

    It doesn't even seem that any of the other comic cons are speaking out publicly about this issue. Are any of them even adding their two cents worth to Techdirt's articles? Did any of them offer to testify at the trial?

  • Sep 20th, 2017 @ 11:00am

    (untitled comment)

    The phrase "comic con" is clearly generic, and "'comic cons' are held in nearly every state of the United States." So why is San Diego Comic-Con betting the farm by going after far away Salt Lake City Comic Con? What greedy idiots. BTW, not to be sexist, but it sure seems like these ridiculous trademark cases always involve male egomaniacs.

  • Sep 8th, 2017 @ 5:02pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: strong anti-SLAPP laws

    Besides being a paranoid troll, you sure must have a lot of extra time on your hands. I have no idea who Thad is or what's up with his website, whatever it is. But I do know this thread is supposed to be about anti-SLAPP laws. And since you're making wild accusations about others, why won't you ever admit who you are or what your website is? I don't know about Thad, but I see no reason to waste anymore time on a troll who's too afraid to come out of the shadows.

  • Sep 8th, 2017 @ 2:35pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: strong anti-SLAPP laws

    BTW, I wonder if attorneys like Marc Randazza will ever start pushing for anti-SLAPP laws that do more than make sure the attorneys get paid. If an anti-SLAPP attorney truly cares about their clients, shouldn't they be advocating for compensation for the victims of SLAPP suits?

  • Sep 8th, 2017 @ 2:25pm

    Re: Re: Re: strong anti-SLAPP laws

    I second Thad's terrific point-by-point reply!

  • Sep 7th, 2017 @ 11:02am

    strong anti-SLAPP laws

    CONGRATULATIONS!!!

    But anti-SLAPP laws that only include legal fees are WEAK, not strong or effective deterrents against deep-pocketed SLAPP suit filers.

    To be truly strong and effective deterrents, anti-SLAPP laws must also include significant punitive damages, including against the attorneys who filed the SLAPP suit.

    The only ones who really benefit from weak anti-SLAPP laws that only include legal fees, are the attorneys on BOTH sides.

    If anti-SLAPP laws include legal fees, plus significant punitive damages against the SLAPP suit filer and their unethical attorneys, SLAPP suits would likely drop by well over 90%.

    But that may never happen since attorneys and judges are so resistant to supporting laws that penalize bad attorneys.

  • Feb 18th, 2017 @ 10:48am

    anti-SLAPP laws (as Entrepreneurman)

    This case highlights how damn weak and nearly worthless our anti-SLAPP laws are. They're really just another way for attorneys on BOTH sides to profit from abusive litigation.

    California supposedly has one of the best anti-SLAPP laws in the country, but it's barely a deterrent because it only awards attorney's fees and costs, and provides zero damages to the actual victims of SLAPP suits (and no penalties against attorneys who file SLAPP suits!). What kind of deterrent or solution is zero compensation for the victims? As Mike points out, "the fight itself is incredibly distracting and burdensome."

    To be a truly effective deterrent, anti-SLAPP laws must include significant damages against SLAPP suit filers AND their unethical and predatory attorneys. Possibly having to pay attorney's fees and costs is just the cost of doing business for a deep-pocketed SLAPP suit filer. It also means that the SLAPP suit victim has to risk paying their attorneys upfront, or be able to find an attorney who is willing and able to take the case on contingency hoping to win and get paid sometime down the road.

    So once again only the attorneys win.

  • Jan 31st, 2017 @ 10:02am

    (untitled comment) (as Scott)

    Mike, very well stated. Passionate w/out being overly emotional. Thanks for writing it.

  • Dec 28th, 2016 @ 5:36pm

    Re: Re: willful false statements (as Entrepreneurman)

    To be clear, this is a list of already APPROVED federal trademark applications that Entrepreneur magazine CEO Peter Shea has recently had his attorneys threaten at the USPTO.

More comments from Scott S. >>