We shouldn´t forget the original meaning of trademarks: to provide useful information about the product. When the King ordered swords for his army, he wanted them to be individually signed by whoever made them.... Compare that with today´s situation. What is a fake Rolex anyway? or a fake Nokia? Global trademarks make it possible for the corporations to hide behind the bamboo curtain.<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 1:11 AM, Edison Carter <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:the.real.edison.carter@gmail.com">the.real.edison.carter@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">> Mikko Särelä wrote:<br>
>> Or perhaps, we shouldn't have trademark laws that are designed to protect<br>
>> companies. Instead we could have laws that protect consumers from<br>
>> fraudulent naming of products (e.g. naming things so that the consumer is<br>
>> likely to mistake the product for another).<br>
>><br>
>> It is the consumer who suffers and who should be compensate instead of the<br>
>> big corps.<br>
><br>
> That would be only a slight change in the idea of trademarks. I like it. :)<br>
><br>
<br>
</div>It's just a matter of focus; trademark law protects both the consumer<br>
(buying fake rolexes) and the companies (cheap imitations taking<br>
advantage of Rolex's name) .. and I don't think there's anything wrong<br>
with either purpose as long as we have a clear recognition if what<br>
Trademark is supposed to be for and maintain a balance where<br>
protecting the consumer is given at least equal priority.<br>
<br>
There may occasionally be companies with a good reputation who get<br>
bought out and start selling 'crap' products, at which time consumers<br>
will still have some protection through other laws such as the<br>
Consumer Guarantees Act (in New Zealand) or similar laws elsewhere,<br>
but on the whole companies who have built up a reputation for quality<br>
usually want to protect that reputation.<br>
<br>
Yes there are idiotic cases such as Renault, Monster Cable, and almost<br>
anything involving the Olympics. That's not an inherent fault of<br>
Trademark law itself, that's a failure to recognise what trademark is<br>
and isn't... companies and lawyers thinking about trademark as<br>
"Intellectual Property" rather than "reputation" or "Identity". I<br>
don't think there needs to be any major change in Trademark law<br>
itself, just that the courts need to more consistently apply the<br>
principle "would a typical consumer/customer (moron in a hurry) be<br>
confused by this" -- There's no risk that a child named Megan Renaud<br>
is going to confuse anyone into buying a car from the wrong company.<br>
There's no chance that anyone will accidentally buy overpriced speaker<br>
cables from "Monster Mini-putt". And f*ck it, the entire modern<br>
Olympics needs to just die in a fire.<br>
<br>
And yes, if consumers want to buy a $300 "iPod" instead of an equal<br>
quality and less restricted generic mp3 player for a third of the<br>
price I don't really see that as a problem either. They should have<br>
just as much right as anyone else to know that they're getting a<br>
genuine Apple® iPod®. I defend the consumer's right to be sheep if<br>
they want to!!<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5">____________________________________________________<br>
Pirate Parties International - General Talk<br>
<a href="mailto:pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net">pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general" target="_blank">http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>