[pp.int.general] trademarks

[Christian Hufgard]

Great explanation, thx!

Christian

Edison Carter wrote:
> People who want a genuine Rolex get some assurance under Trademark law
> that when they buy a Rolex (anywhere other than from a street vendor
> at least) there's a fairly good chance that it will be an actual
> Rolex, with whatever assurance of quality and value that implies.
> 
> Rolex defend their trademark by suing dishonest vendors. They get some
> value out of that, but they're also just as equally protecting
> consumers from paying premium price for what they expect is going to
> be a good quality watch, only to have it stop a month later.
> 
> Trademark law is in general a GOOD law. It has just as much value for
> consumers as it has for manufacturers and sellers. We just need to
> make sure that it stays reigned in so that this balance is maintained.
> 
> 
> Copyright law in general is also not entirely bad law, insofar as it
> provides a means for content creators to share the profits from
> commercial publication. The problem is that Copyright law has already
> got wildly out of hand. Copyright started out only limiting
> 'commercial' copying because there was no other sort of copying on any
> scale, as personal, non-commercial copying became possible copyright
> law should not have extended to restricting that. Also the length of
> copyright is completely obscene, as copying, publishing and
> distribution have become steadily cheaper and faster it seems logical
> to me that we should see shorter and less encompassing copyright, but
> instead we've gone in completely the opposite direction.