4 ms·

If I may play devil's advocate here, I've wondered if the motivation behind this was actually the fact that if you do not defend your trademark, your inaction c

If I may play devil's advocate here, I've wondered if the motivation behind this was actually the fact that if you do not defend your trademark, your inaction can be used as a defense in future cases and you effectively lose your trademark. So you may have to pursue cases that you think are ridiculous to retain your right to pursue cases that you actually take seriously.

leggomylibro 9y ago
If I may play devil's advocate to that argument, it sounds like firefighters selling fire insurance, or something like regulatory capture for the legal system. "If you don't hire enough lawyers to defend your trademark, you'll lose it!" It hurts small actors in both directions; how many Mom/Pop shops can afford to "aggressively defend" their intellectual property, and how many can afford to actually defend it if a large incumbent comes after them with a frivolous suit motivated by these sorts of ridiculous fears? I'm not saying the legal system doesn't work that way, it just sounds like a scuzzy argument.
- TallGuyShort 9y ago
  I absolutely don't think it should work that way, and I don't know if there's a case in which it has worked that way - but I've heard that from enough legit lawyers that I personally would weigh the cost of losing a trademark into whether or not my lawyers had my blessing in sending a cease-and-desist.
syshum 9y ago
No, Trademark Law Does Not Require Companies To Tirelessly Censor the Internet https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not-require-companies-tirelessly-censor-internet https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not...
- TallGuyShort 9y ago
  The problem is that if most judges are former lawyers and most lawyers think something is the law, it may as well be the law, and no business is going to want to be the one thumping their stacks of legal opinions yelling that their trademark is still valid.
temporalparts 9y ago
It's in the wikipedia article: > Following the case it was suggested by Struan Robertson – editor of Out-Law.com – that Microsoft had little choice but to pursue the issue once it had come to light or they would have risked weakening their trademark.[19] This view was also espoused by ZDNet, who noted that had Microsoft knowingly ignored Rowe's site, the company would have risked losing the right to fight future trademark infringements.[20] Robertson opined that – had legal proceedings ensued – Rowe would have made a strong argument for keeping his domain, as he was using his real name and was not claiming to be affiliated with Microsoft.[19]
Arzh 9y ago
It's also no mistake that Mike Rowe picked MikeRoweSoft because it sounded like "microsoft"

leggomylibro 9y ago

If I may play devil's advocate to that argument, it sounds like firefighters selling fire insurance, or something like regulatory capture for the legal system. "If you don't hire enough lawyers to defend your trademark, you'll lose it!" It hurts small actors in both directions; how many Mom/Pop shops can afford to "aggressively defend" their intellectual property, and how many can afford to actually defend it if a large incumbent comes after them with a frivolous suit motivated by these sorts of ridiculous fears? I'm not saying the legal system doesn't work that way, it just sounds like a scuzzy argument.

TallGuyShort 9y ago
I absolutely don't think it should work that way, and I don't know if there's a case in which it has worked that way - but I've heard that from enough legit lawyers that I personally would weigh the cost of losing a trademark into whether or not my lawyers had my blessing in sending a cease-and-desist.

syshum 9y ago

No, Trademark Law Does Not Require Companies To Tirelessly Censor the Internet https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not-require-companies-tirelessly-censor-internet https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not...

TallGuyShort 9y ago
The problem is that if most judges are former lawyers and most lawyers think something is the law, it may as well be the law, and no business is going to want to be the one thumping their stacks of legal opinions yelling that their trademark is still valid.

temporalparts 9y ago

It's in the wikipedia article: > Following the case it was suggested by Struan Robertson – editor of Out-Law.com – that Microsoft had little choice but to pursue the issue once it had come to light or they would have risked weakening their trademark.[19] This view was also espoused by ZDNet, who noted that had Microsoft knowingly ignored Rowe's site, the company would have risked losing the right to fight future trademark infringements.[20] Robertson opined that – had legal proceedings ensued – Rowe would have made a strong argument for keeping his domain, as he was using his real name and was not claiming to be affiliated with Microsoft.[19]

Arzh 9y ago

It's also no mistake that Mike Rowe picked MikeRoweSoft because it sounded like "microsoft"