This guy, by using the sticker, is "trying to force their social, religious, secular, racial, or fiscal values" onto those who are offended by them. For no discernible purpose other than to annoy them.
Exactly what the AC is complaining about. And I agree with that complaint.
Yes, he's within his 1st Amendment rights to do it.
But he shouldn't.
Lots of things are legal that ought not to be done by civilized people.
All of us here can't edit our posts, not just you.
Take the time to get it right the first time, or live with the typos for evermore. Same as the rest of us.
Stop expecting special treatment. I invented lots of stuff too - just like millions of other young people who discover obvious and useful things (like email) but are still ignorant of the fact that other people invented those same things long ago.
There's a reason nobody got a patent on email, you know - it's obvious. Useful, yes, but obvious and so not patentable. Even for the FIRST inventor.
And why should Mike respond to your request if you can't be bothered to even let him know who it is doing the asking?
Agreed, but this is a case of exactly what you're tired of.
Everyone in this society knows there are lots of people who find any reference to sex offensive. Mr. "Making my Family" Owens surely knew lots of prudes would be upset, and was forcing that upset on "everyone else".
It doesn't bother me a bit (I find it worth a chuckle).
And I support the case, because the 1st Amendment needs to be defended in the grey areas if it's to be strong in the areas we care about.
But this is a grey area, and Mr. Owens is not a nice person.
Uber has elevated civil disobedience to a business model.
With some discomfort, I have to say I admire them for it.
I'm generally a fan of the rule of law - if the law sucks it should be changed, not violated.
But sometimes the only practical way to get it changed is civil disobedience. Esp. so with victimless "crimes".
If Uber hadn't played games like this, they'd never have gotten the volume, revenue, and number of (voting) customers needed to get the law changed, disrupting the taxi cartels.
Lots of other more law-abiding types have tried to break into the market for decades, and got stomped every time. Uber has found a model that works - blatant, open violation of the law, working in favor of customers. And finding sneaky ways to avoid punishment long enough to reap credit for it.
This can only work when it's the law that's criminal, not the violators. But maybe we need more of this.
Mike, I'm sorry to hear this has been so distracting to you and the other TD staffers.
I wonder if you're handling it right.
I know it's easy to be cool and relaxed when it's not my own business and investment at stake, but I think it's a mistake, on multiple levels, to respond with lots of time, attention, and legal expense.
The point is that Ayyadurai has no case. He clearly didn't invent email; that's trivial to prove in court. He's clearly attacking you solely for pointing out that the emperor is naked.
There are other legal arguments, but given these facts I think they're irrelevant.
I hear lots of TD commenters claiming that people have no choice but to fold in the face of baseless legal intimidation, because of the cost of defense.
By making a huge deal out of this, raising lots of money (I bought 2 shirts and a mug), and admitting to your own distraction, you are reinforcing that meme.
Which I think is plain wrong. Our court system isn't that bad. It does care for simple justice and the plain letter of the law.
Instead of responding with all-hands-on-deck, red alert, and a 30 page filing, how about having your lawyer spend 4 hours drafting a 2 page reply:
Ayyadurai didn't invent email. See these references.
This is a baseless attack meant to silence his critics
We want legal fees and damages for this baseless case
Then shut up. Let the courts do their work.
Even if you lose (unlikely), you can always appeal.
If the trademark is a gift of the Chinese government, then he can't accept it.
If the trademark is his (intellectual) property by right under Chinese law (in this case because he was first-to-file), then it's allowed.
Which of the two cases apply may be difficult to say, which is one of the (many) reasons why Presidents have mostly divested themselves of personal business while in office.
Given Mr. Trump's very personal feelings about his business (after all, most of it seems to involve pasting giant letters T R U M P on every possible surface), this was always going to be a problem. But we knew that going in.