3 ms·

So why is this not an article angry at the USPTO for granting overly broad trademarks? Of course companies are going to try to overreach and get as much as the

by imgabe 7y ago

So why is this not an article angry at the USPTO for granting overly broad trademarks? Of course companies are going to try to overreach and get as much as they can. The point of having a government is to regulate and turn down unreasonable requests. That's where this needs to be fixed, not by expecting profit driven companies to altruistically leave money on the table. It should be obvious by now that doesn't work.

jessaustin 7y ago
Ethics does not depend on the state. In many "backcountry" areas, the nearest LEO is several hours away. Even so, crime rates are lower than in many urban areas.
- imgabe 7y ago
  Ok, if anyone ever sues you with an overly broad trademark claim, just tell them to be more ethical and that should handle it.
  - jessaustin 7y ago
    Nonsense, clearly David Ollila has provided the example to follow in such a situation. Depending on a random federal bureaucracy to act as you would prefer rather than how they are set up to act is unlikely to satisfy. Private equity executives are human, if only barely so; they also have ethical duties. This episode is a test of the people who purchase clothing and equipment for outdoor activities. If we pass the test, backcountry.com will either change their unethical policies or go out of business. If we fail, we'll be buying ever-shittier products from an ever-shittier retailer.
    - imgabe 7y ago
      Bureaucrats are also human. This is hardly a random federal agency, it is the one specifically devoted to handling this sort of thing. It is not too much to ask that they actually do that. Not every company who gets sued is going to have the resources to fight it. It's also not reasonable to expect consumers to police the morality of every company they do business with. This is literally the purpose of having a government, to offload the responsibility of policing to people dedicated to it.
      - jessaustin 7y ago
        They are human, but they are not judges. When they act as judges, people have to spend eight years in federal court. [0] Much better for USPTO to let nearly everything through, trusting that most people are just trying to do business. When exceptions arise, they arise in the courts where they belong, but only after either A) someone infringes a valid trademark in some fashion that the courts can address and the holder decides that the courts should address that infringement or B) as in this case, frivolous dickheads decide to subject the public and the courts to some of their dickheaded frivolity. You and I may have very different ideas about government. Do you support anti-BDS legislation? [1] Should people only speak the right speech, with the advance permission of the proper authorities? Fuck that, we have 1A for a reason. We have the right to say what we want and do business with whom we want. We also have the right not to speak and not to do business. The entire concept of trademark is a creation of the state. If it no longer benefits the people, it should be fixed or eliminated. If cases like this were more common, I would support the latter alternative. [0] https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/06/26/supreme-court-rocks-trademark-office-slants-case/id=84967/ https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/06/26/supreme-court-rocks-tr... [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-02-06/anti-bds-bill-approved-by-senate-avoids-first-amendment-questions https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-02-06/anti-b...
chiefalchemist 7y ago
Is the granting overly broad? Yeah. Probably. However, nothing is granted unless some entity applies for it. Backcountry could / can choose another name. They could serve customers. Instead they're paying lawyers to serve legal threats. Sure, they can do that. But it's a short sighted growth strategy.

by imgabe 7y ago

jessaustin 7y ago

Ethics does not depend on the state. In many "backcountry" areas, the nearest LEO is several hours away. Even so, crime rates are lower than in many urban areas.

imgabe 7y ago
Ok, if anyone ever sues you with an overly broad trademark claim, just tell them to be more ethical and that should handle it.
- jessaustin 7y ago
  Nonsense, clearly David Ollila has provided the example to follow in such a situation. Depending on a random federal bureaucracy to act as you would prefer rather than how they are set up to act is unlikely to satisfy. Private equity executives are human, if only barely so; they also have ethical duties. This episode is a test of the people who purchase clothing and equipment for outdoor activities. If we pass the test, backcountry.com will either change their unethical policies or go out of business. If we fail, we'll be buying ever-shittier products from an ever-shittier retailer.
  - imgabe 7y ago
    Bureaucrats are also human. This is hardly a random federal agency, it is the one specifically devoted to handling this sort of thing. It is not too much to ask that they actually do that. Not every company who gets sued is going to have the resources to fight it. It's also not reasonable to expect consumers to police the morality of every company they do business with. This is literally the purpose of having a government, to offload the responsibility of policing to people dedicated to it.
    - jessaustin 7y ago
      They are human, but they are not judges. When they act as judges, people have to spend eight years in federal court. [0] Much better for USPTO to let nearly everything through, trusting that most people are just trying to do business. When exceptions arise, they arise in the courts where they belong, but only after either A) someone infringes a valid trademark in some fashion that the courts can address and the holder decides that the courts should address that infringement or B) as in this case, frivolous dickheads decide to subject the public and the courts to some of their dickheaded frivolity. You and I may have very different ideas about government. Do you support anti-BDS legislation? [1] Should people only speak the right speech, with the advance permission of the proper authorities? Fuck that, we have 1A for a reason. We have the right to say what we want and do business with whom we want. We also have the right not to speak and not to do business. The entire concept of trademark is a creation of the state. If it no longer benefits the people, it should be fixed or eliminated. If cases like this were more common, I would support the latter alternative. [0] https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/06/26/supreme-court-rocks-trademark-office-slants-case/id=84967/ https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/06/26/supreme-court-rocks-tr... [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-02-06/anti-bds-bill-approved-by-senate-avoids-first-amendment-questions https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-02-06/anti-b...

chiefalchemist 7y ago

Is the granting overly broad? Yeah. Probably. However, nothing is granted unless some entity applies for it. Backcountry could / can choose another name. They could serve customers. Instead they're paying lawyers to serve legal threats. Sure, they can do that. But it's a short sighted growth strategy.