4 ms·

How the fuck can any judge in their right mind allow a case like this into their courtroom? This is probably one of the worst examples of copyright (edit: IP La

How the fuck can any judge in their right mind allow a case like this into their courtroom? This is probably one of the worst examples of copyright (edit: IP Laws) getting out of control I've seen in a long while.

ZenPsycho 10y ago
Trademark. they are talking about trademarks here, not copyrights. The two are so vastly different, for vastly different purposes, and vastly different constraints placed on them, that it is beyond foolishness to confuse the two. There's a bit of irony here as well, since preventing consumers from confusing two things is the whole point of trademarks.
- King-Aaron 10y ago
  > The two are so vastly different, for vastly different purposes, and vastly different constraints placed on them, that it is beyond foolishness to confuse the two. It's actually not vastly different, however there is a clear difference indeed. I feel you're just out hunting for something to be pedantic about, lol.
  - ZenPsycho 10y ago
    Trademark is a consumer protection law. Copyright is a creator protection law. They are not anywhere close to the same sort of thing except if you look at them kind of sideways. To casually interchange them makes no sense.
    - abestic9 10y ago
      Let's acknowledge the difference between Trademark and Copyright. Is it any less senseless?
      - ZenPsycho 10y ago
        In truth, no, because even if one were to correctly identify this case as being about Trademark law, and complained about how "out of hand" these laws are getting, that would still be ignorant of the fact that trademark law requires companies to vigorously protect their trademarks or risk losing them. Furthermore, trademarking generic words and phrases (such as "Apple" or "Orange" or "THANKYOU") is totally legitimate, since the additional requirement for a trademark is that the category or industry is part of the trademark and the protection only extends to that category. No, the flimsiest part of this lawsuit is that AT&T cannot be reasonably said to be operating in the banking industry- but in this case they specifically used the "THANK" word in the context of its partnership with CITI GROUP, so in this specific case AT&T was operating in the banking industry, and using something confusingly similar to CITI GROUP's trademark. and so of course, CITI GROUP is not in this case evil or litigious, but actually legally required to challenge that usage. To not pursue this would be neglect of the law. Of course, the most annoying part about this is how easy it is to exploit the public's ignorance of how trademark law works to generate clicks and outrage.
        King-Aaron 10y ago
        My main point, of course, is on this: > Furthermore, trademarking generic words and phrases (such as "Apple" or "Orange" or "THANKYOU") is totally legitimate Which really, shouldn't be. Because it couldn't reasonably be argued that a consumer could be "confused" at a simple word or phrase like "thankyou" and therefore being misled into using a different company. If you do try to make such an argument, it displays a level of contempt for the consumer, and is also taking the protection of intellectual properties beyond a reasonable level and moves into the abstract. I completely understand that people will happily defend things like this because it is "legitimate". I generally question why people feel it's acceptable that it's a legitimate practice however. Apologies if that annoys you, of course.
        ZenPsycho 10y ago
        it is legitimate. it legitimately protects consumers from fraud. apologies if consumer protection annoys you.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - programmer_man 10y ago
      The point of trademark is to protect the reputation of the company using the mark just as much as protecting the customer from being mislead.

ZenPsycho 10y ago

Trademark. they are talking about trademarks here, not copyrights. The two are so vastly different, for vastly different purposes, and vastly different constraints placed on them, that it is beyond foolishness to confuse the two. There's a bit of irony here as well, since preventing consumers from confusing two things is the whole point of trademarks.

King-Aaron 10y ago
> The two are so vastly different, for vastly different purposes, and vastly different constraints placed on them, that it is beyond foolishness to confuse the two. It's actually not vastly different, however there is a clear difference indeed. I feel you're just out hunting for something to be pedantic about, lol.
- ZenPsycho 10y ago
  Trademark is a consumer protection law. Copyright is a creator protection law. They are not anywhere close to the same sort of thing except if you look at them kind of sideways. To casually interchange them makes no sense.
  - abestic9 10y ago
    Let's acknowledge the difference between Trademark and Copyright. Is it any less senseless?
    - ZenPsycho 10y ago
      In truth, no, because even if one were to correctly identify this case as being about Trademark law, and complained about how "out of hand" these laws are getting, that would still be ignorant of the fact that trademark law requires companies to vigorously protect their trademarks or risk losing them. Furthermore, trademarking generic words and phrases (such as "Apple" or "Orange" or "THANKYOU") is totally legitimate, since the additional requirement for a trademark is that the category or industry is part of the trademark and the protection only extends to that category. No, the flimsiest part of this lawsuit is that AT&T cannot be reasonably said to be operating in the banking industry- but in this case they specifically used the "THANK" word in the context of its partnership with CITI GROUP, so in this specific case AT&T was operating in the banking industry, and using something confusingly similar to CITI GROUP's trademark. and so of course, CITI GROUP is not in this case evil or litigious, but actually legally required to challenge that usage. To not pursue this would be neglect of the law. Of course, the most annoying part about this is how easy it is to exploit the public's ignorance of how trademark law works to generate clicks and outrage.
      - King-Aaron 10y ago
        My main point, of course, is on this: > Furthermore, trademarking generic words and phrases (such as "Apple" or "Orange" or "THANKYOU") is totally legitimate Which really, shouldn't be. Because it couldn't reasonably be argued that a consumer could be "confused" at a simple word or phrase like "thankyou" and therefore being misled into using a different company. If you do try to make such an argument, it displays a level of contempt for the consumer, and is also taking the protection of intellectual properties beyond a reasonable level and moves into the abstract. I completely understand that people will happily defend things like this because it is "legitimate". I generally question why people feel it's acceptable that it's a legitimate practice however. Apologies if that annoys you, of course.
        ZenPsycho 10y ago
        it is legitimate. it legitimately protects consumers from fraud. apologies if consumer protection annoys you.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - programmer_man 10y ago
    The point of trademark is to protect the reputation of the company using the mark just as much as protecting the customer from being mislead.