[pp.int.general] trademarks

[Reinier Bakels]

I am sorry, I don't understand a single word of what you are saying. A 
trademark is an identification (word, symbol, colour, shape, etc.). If it is 
a word, it must not be descriptive: trademarks don't monopolise ordinary 
language. It must not have a technical effect (e.g. a particular shape), 
otherwise the trademark protection would work as a patent.

You have a name. Is there a reason why you should not have a name? The 
difference with a trademark is perhaps that it is a name (identifier) that 
is chosen specifically for a product or manufacturer. If there are people 
having the same first and last name as you, then it is a nuisance, and if 
you meet such a person in business, you have to make arrangements to prevent 
confusion. I am named after my grandfather who died in 1956. Fortunately my 
parends gave me a different middle name, else it might be confusing.

Trademarks are explicitly chosen for product identification. So it is easy 
to require firms to register unique trademark names. Incidentally, names can 
be resued if the product is different.

The protection of the ROLEX name serves a purpose, even for consumers, 
because you may be cheated. When I bought my ROLEX in BKK for 10 euro, it 
was an honest transaction. But a dishonest vendor could have sold it to me 
for 1000 euro.

Improvements on trademark law should imnsho concentrate on specific 
aspects - as enumerated in my previous post.

reinier

> Just as any other form of monopolies on ideal objects trademark laws
> create a form of artificial scarcity that is impossible to justify on
> moral grounds; just as any other exaggeration on legislation on ideal
> objects it's fairly easy to see that an exaggeration of it never will
> serve an overall public interest (e.g. do a Google search on "edge
> games"). So trademark laws themselves are completely arbitrary and
> difficult to justify in the current form to serve to a public interest.
> If you sell me an imitated Rolex watch without indicating that to me
> that it's not an original, you are violating my moral rights, not those
> of Rolex. But there will be never any moral justification for Rolex to
> confiscate an imitated Rolex watch that I import, no matter whether I
> was aware or unaware of that before.
>
> To me the idea of identity of subjects is rather arbitrary concept
> created by our minds that were born into western societies, but which
> may serve a purpose in the society itself. I see trademark laws as an
> effort to apply this concept to non-aware objects and transferring the
> associated rights to subjects that claim to own the respective identity
> concept. Therefor to me that application can't be anything but spoiled
> and that trademark laws are overall a bad idea.
>
> - pat
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general