Archive | Politics RSS feed for this section

Trademarks and the candidates

It’s a little late, but not irrelevant for all that:

wtr-trademark-candidates

Click through (before they archive it!) to read what the so-called “IP experts” (yes, LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION® is supposedly one of them!) have to say.

Which exit did we get off, again?

Originally posted 2008-09-07 00:34:46. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Well, maybe we’ve been too hard on the Democrats here at LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION®.  Perhaps unlike the GOP, they’ve got good, progressive IP counsel out there, and maybe an Obama Administration will take a more realistic view of what you can and can’t do on the Internet.  At least we know they don’t have any hangups about “deceptive key word advertising” or “Internet traffic diversion,” the modern bugaboos of Internet trademark litigation.  Turns out they think those things are pretty keen!

Here’s a screen shot (click for full size) of a search result you got if you searched Google for SARAH PALIN SPEECH on Saturday night [updated; see below] — note the sponsored link on top, in color, that links to the Democratic Convention website, DemConvention.com:

The link actually tells Internet users they’re going to a page called DemCovention.com/RNC.  Wow, are they showing the Palin speech in order to get you to compare it critically to what the DNC has to offer?  It’s comparison shopping, right?  A modern-day Miracle on 34th Street!

Well, no.  Here’s what you actually get: Read More…

Breaking news!

Originally posted 2011-08-16 12:34:58. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Study finds people rationalize things!

Trademark on the Left Bank

Originally posted 2006-02-05 01:40:15. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Interesting discussion, on one level or another, among non-specialists including Matthew Yglesias of a leftish stripe on the politics of trademark infringement at TPMCafe. They’re disappointed that Democrats are going along with the proposed changes to the federal dilution statute, and they should be. Yglesias links back to a column by Atrios, who says, “The original purpose of trademark law was to protect consumers from confusion, not to protect the sanctity of a brand.” Who’s said that before?

UPDATE:  Another point of view, via Instapundit.

Best of 2005: Power Line: Mary Mapes is a Year Late, and Way Short on Logic

First posted on September 30, 2005.

The Powerline blog, appropriately, undertakes the definitive (if only preliminary) deconstruction and rebuttal of journalistic fraud Mary Mapes’s new revisionist history on the topic of last summer’s Dan Rather “fake but accurate” moment.

It was a signal moment for all of usSEARED-ON-INSTAPUNDIT

UPDATE: Wow, everyone’s getting in on the nostalgia act! Says James Taranto:

Read More…

Best of 2009: Properly classified — there’s no “significant doubt”

US President Barack Obama gestures for the crowd to keep quiet about his visit to the O&H Danish Bakery to buy kringle pastries so that First Lady Michelle Obama wouldn't find out about the visit, during a town hall event on the economy at Racine Memorial Hall in Racine, Wisconsin, June 30, 2010. AFP PHOTO / Saul LOEB (Photo credit should read SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images)

Photo: SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

CORY DOCTOROW: Obama administration: releasing details of secret copyright treaty endangers”national security.” Er, what?

Good question, Instapundit.  Click through — the original story is here, at Wired.  The reference is to the so-called Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, or ACTA.

But you can really see all you need to see by reading the letter from the Administration responding to a Freedom of Information Act request for disclosure of this information about a copyright treaty by stating that the documents the documents you seek are being withheld in full pursuant to 5 U.S.C. sec. 552(b)(1), which pertains to information that is properly classified in the interest of national security pursuant to Executive Order 12958.

10 Years of LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION®

10 Years of LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION®

Well, good to know they’re being properly withheld!

But can this truly be the case?

Here’s what that Clinton-era Executive Order says (in part) about what shall and shall not be deemed classified (emphases added): Read More…

Best of 2008: Which exit did we get off, again?

Posted on September 7, 2008.

Well, maybe we’ve been too hard on the Democrats here at LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION®.  Perhaps unlike the GOP, they’ve got good, progressive IP counsel out there, and maybe an Obama Administration will take a more realistic view of what you can and can’t do on the Internet.  At least we know they don’t have any hangups about “deceptive key word advertising” or “Internet traffic diversion,” the modern bugaboos of Internet trademark litigation.  Turns out they think those things are pretty keen!

10 Years of LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION®

10 Years of LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION®

Above is a screen shot (click for full size) of a search result you got if you searched Google for SARAH PALIN SPEECH on Saturday night — note the sponsored link on top, in color, that links to the Democratic Convention website, DemConvention.com:

The link tells Internet users they’re going to a page called DemCovention.com/RNC.  Wow, are they showing the Palin speech in order to get you to compare it critically to what the DNC has to offer?  It’s comparison shopping, right?  A modern-day Miracle on 34th Street!

Well, no.  Here’s what you actually get: Read More…

We hold these truths to be self evident©

Declaration of IndependenceIs there a lot of talk about intellectual property in the Declaration of Independence?

Not a lot.  It was a not a burning issue in 1776.

But I did find some passages that I thought were worth considering in light of trademark and copyright practice here in the middle of the third century of American independence, at least when juxtaposed against some quotable quotes on the topic:

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE:  When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another . . . A decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

BIG IP:  The . . . Second Circuit . . . concluded that the Lanham Act cannot be read to afford protection to a foreign mark under the “famous marks” doctrine. . . .  Professor McCarthy calls the decision a “great embarrassment” for the United States.

Ouch.  How about this?

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE:  We hold these truths to be self-evident . . .

LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION STANDARD:  “Look, this is a subjective test, so you can’t be wrong. Just disqualified for a judgeship.”

It’s good to be the king!  Let’s try copyright:

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE:  The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. 

COPYRIGHT PREEMPTION:  Conversion under state law is the exercise of control over property ‘without authorization,’ and the court says that this element is ‘conceptually indistinguishable from an unauthorized taking in the copyright context.’ The court finds that a trespass to chattels cause of action is similar to a conversion claim, and both of these claims are preempted [by the Copyright Act].

Well, that’s a highly technical issue, isn’t it? It’s not like the chief executive is  being undemocratic about the IP laws, is it?

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE:  He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.  . . .  [T]aking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments

THE ADMINISTRATION:  It certainly appears that the US Justice Department and ICE don’t think they need any new law to go after people in foreign countries over claims of criminal copyright infringement. . . After all, Megaupload was one of the key examples used for why[SOPA / PIPA] was needed. As lots of folks are currently digesting, the Justice Department, along with ICE, have shut down the site and arrested many of the principals . . . [for] criminal copyright infringement.

Just kidding.  None of this is tyrannical, really — except to the little people whose lives and businesses are ruined by it.  You got to break a few eggs to make an omelet, though, right?

Frankly, independence has worked out very well for us.  Just… be careful!

 

 

Punk sprung

Remember the insufferable Josh Wolf? He’s back on the streets, the enemy of police and the people they protect and yet another martyr for the self-absorbed press everywhere. Perhaps, if we’re fortunate, there’s a haircut out here for him. The Washington Post reports:

A San Francisco blogger who spent nearly eight months in jail for refusing to testify about an anarchists’ demonstration was released yesterday after turning over a videotape of the protest and posting it on his Web site.

Josh Wolf, 24, also answered two questions from prosecutors, after striking a deal that ends the longest contempt-of-court term ever served by someone in the U.S. media.

“I’m completely satisfied with the resolution,” Wolf said by phone from California one hour after being released. “There’s a very large problem with forcing a reporter to act as an investigator for a government prosecution. . . . It’s absolutely a victory.”

Since the video captured no violent incidents, he said, “it wasn’t worth being a martyr for no purpose.”

Yeah, that’s for sure. Did you know witnesses to a crime — like the splitting open of a cop’s head, which was what happened here — who have evidence, are transformed into “investigators for a government prosecution” if they are asked to just turn it over? No matter how inconsequential their information? After all, as the Post says, “A viewing of the video leaves unclear why Wolf fought so hard to protect it.” How about self-absorption and contempt for the society that enables him to live indefinitely — and just ending now, rent-free for half a year — as a punk slacker?

Check out his site (click at the graphic above) — he got every bouquet the journalism cult, demanding its special exemptions from participation in the society that enriches them, could throw him while cooling his heels in the joint. I don’t question whether he was acting as a “journalist” at the time — I continue to agree that journalism is something you do, not something you get get to be by virtue of some credential. But I think if you have evidence of a crime, regardless of whatever you were doing when you got it, yes, you give it to the cops. Not according to the subversive media’s view of citizenship circa 2007, however — and once again, we are reminded of why no one likes or trusts the professional media any more. The good news: With God’s help, Josh Wolf’s 15 minutes is over. Hat tip to Evan Brown.

Democrats seek to institute government monitoring of media

Already giddy with the power they expect to be delivered to them today, Democrats are promising to reinstate government control of public communication to insure what political appointees determine is “fairness” and balance:Here to help with fairness

Asked if he is a supporter of telling radio stations what content they should have, [Sen. Charles] Schumer used the fair and balanced line, claiming that critics of the Fairness Doctrine are being inconsistent.

“The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to limit pornography on the air. I am for that… But you can’t say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent.”

Talk about consistent?  Schumer says he is “for” regulation that prohibits pornography on the air, but that “the very same people” who favor that regulation — but not him, just the other “very same people” — oppose mere “government intervention” to insure “fairness.”  Of course, the comparison is also inapt:  Pornography is not protected by the Constitution.  Political speech is.

Senate Rules Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) last year said, “I believe very strongly that the airwaves are public and people use these airwaves for profit. But there is a responsibility to see that both sides and not just one side of the big public questions of debate of the day are aired and are aired with some modicum of fairness.”

We have a feeling she isn’t talking about the “fairness” with which the networks covered this year’s Presidential election.

Welcome to your new world of free speech — free only when it is “fair,” and “fair” only when Washington (and perhaps your local “dependable” state government) tells you it is.

And guess whose Washington it is now?

UPDATE:  A modest proposal to end guessing altogether (via Instapundit).