[pp.int.general] trademarks

[Patrick Maechler v/o Valio]

Reinier Bakels wrote:
> I am sorry, I don't understand a single word of what you are saying.

I am sorry if I got carried away with a philosophical discussion you may
were unable to follow. Read up "Against Intellectual Property" (N.
Stephan Kinsella) and you might understand.

> You have a name. Is there a reason why you should not have a name? 

Is there a reason why you should have a name?
I don't feel that it makes sense to argue more on the personal name /
identity discussion with you on that list. Foremost because it will not
lead to a discourse about the legitimacy of trademarks itself, but will
rather remain stuck with philosophical discussions.

> Trademarks are explicitly chosen for product identification. So it is
> easy to require firms to register unique trademark names. 

You do not need to require firms to register trademark names; they do
that themselves because it creates an advantage over competitors.

> 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.
True. But why are you asking ROLEX to sue in your name against the
dishonest vendor?

> Improvements on trademark law should imnsho concentrate on specific
> aspects - as enumerated in my previous post.
I'm not opposed to improvements in trademark law; but I would be neither
opposed to their complete abolishement (which - from a political point
of view - will be rather impossible to achieve)

-pat