3 ms·

> I do have a strong distaste for government pushing people around like that. Since trademarks are an artificial monopoly erected by the government, they exist

> I do have a strong distaste for government pushing people around like that. Since trademarks are an artificial monopoly erected by the government, they exist to push people around. So would the solution be no trademarks? If so, any step that devalues the concept of trademarks (because they're considered unreliable) should be a positive, no?

dnautics 8y ago
I'm pretty low on IP in general but trademarks do serve a useful purpose: namespaces are rivalrous so it makes sense that the government be able to say, hey, you can't start selling low grade big Macs in your town and potentially give McDonald's a bad name.
- isostatic 8y ago
  It's not about "giving mcdonalds a bad name", it's about protecting me from buying what I think is mcdonalds (for some reason), but actually being sold something else. As Pirate Party say: "Trademarks are okay as long as they protect consumers from fraud, etc, but never okay when they punish consumers." They're similar to rules protecting origin. If I buy Feta, it's guaranteed to come from Greece. This protects me. Nothing stops me from buying "greek style cheese", which comes from Italy, I have informed choice.
freedomben 8y ago
Very interesting question, thank you! Requires some thought, and I'm still evaluating it. Some initial thoughts are, that I tend to agree with you. On the one hand, I think the pragmatist view would be that society is benefited (through disambiguation of source, quality, etc. On the other hand, to equitably codify such a subjective mechanism (e.g. does it cause confusion in reasonable consumers?) is nearly impossible, and rather than risk unjust vertical empowerment of one entity (government) over another (citizen), I think I'd rather just not do it all (which is to your point). Like many things, I suppose it comes down to questions of philosophical purity (and therefore morality) vs. pragmatic positions. I see myself as more of a purist than a pragmatist these days, but that may just be my natural inclination toward non-conformity (and all the governments I can think of are heavily tilted toward the pragmatic side).

dnautics 8y ago

I'm pretty low on IP in general but trademarks do serve a useful purpose: namespaces are rivalrous so it makes sense that the government be able to say, hey, you can't start selling low grade big Macs in your town and potentially give McDonald's a bad name.

isostatic 8y ago
It's not about "giving mcdonalds a bad name", it's about protecting me from buying what I think is mcdonalds (for some reason), but actually being sold something else. As Pirate Party say: "Trademarks are okay as long as they protect consumers from fraud, etc, but never okay when they punish consumers." They're similar to rules protecting origin. If I buy Feta, it's guaranteed to come from Greece. This protects me. Nothing stops me from buying "greek style cheese", which comes from Italy, I have informed choice.

freedomben 8y ago

Very interesting question, thank you! Requires some thought, and I'm still evaluating it. Some initial thoughts are, that I tend to agree with you. On the one hand, I think the pragmatist view would be that society is benefited (through disambiguation of source, quality, etc. On the other hand, to equitably codify such a subjective mechanism (e.g. does it cause confusion in reasonable consumers?) is nearly impossible, and rather than risk unjust vertical empowerment of one entity (government) over another (citizen), I think I'd rather just not do it all (which is to your point). Like many things, I suppose it comes down to questions of philosophical purity (and therefore morality) vs. pragmatic positions. I see myself as more of a purist than a pragmatist these days, but that may just be my natural inclination toward non-conformity (and all the governments I can think of are heavily tilted toward the pragmatic side).