4 ms·
It's also because US law requires companies to excessively defend their trademarks in order to enforce them as a rightholder otherwise they lose it. So really U
by LeoTinnitus 7y ago
It's also because US law requires companies to excessively defend their trademarks in order to enforce them as a rightholder otherwise they lose it. So really US law has just been interpreted in a way that is absurdly annoying for everyone. Companies have no choice but to defend and actively seek out even minor things because it can all be used against them in court eventually one day. As long as they actively suppress that stuff, it proves to a judge they are protecting their IP. It's really a precedent set by the US government to force companies to waste this time and annoy us.
- rswail 7y agoCopyright is not Trademarks is not Patents. They are different sorts of protection and rights for different sorts of intellectual property. All/Most countries that have trademark IPR require the holder to defend that right or lose it. It's not US specific. That's because you get the right to that mark because you're using it and watching for other people not to try to misuse or pass off their product/service as yours. You are not required to immediately defend copyright, because its a right you hold whether you publish your work or not. You have copyright on something basically as soon as it is fixed in a physical form (written/recorded etc). Finally, with patents, you're not required to have it in physical form, but you are required to describe it to the patent office in a way someone "skilled in the art" could reproduce. If they do that without getting permission then they have violated your patent. So your premise in your message is incorrect.
- DuskStar 7y agoHowever, trademark is not copyright.
- thwarted 7y agoUS law requires companies to excessively defend their trademarks in order to enforce them as a rightholder otherwise they lose it Copyright and trademarks are different intellectual property concerns with different maintenance, declaration, and enforcement rules.
- rolls-reus 7y agoI've seen the point you make about trademarks often repeated but it is infact not true. 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...
- GoblinSlayer 7y agoIf a belief is comfy enough, people won't abandon it :)
- Hnrobert42 7y agoI donate to EFF regularly, and I support the article’s premise. However, I am not sure an argument by EFF, no matter how much I support it, can be considered a factual counterpoint. Also, I’m bummed to see the parent post downvoted. I thought on HN, downvotes were supposed to be used on off topic/hostile/unproductive points, not just ones with which we disagree.
- rolls-reus 7y agoThe article has citations to some rulings that affirm the point it is making. "Wallpaper Mfrs., Ltd. v. Crown Wallcovering Corp., 680 F.2d 755, 766 (C.C.P.A. 1982) (“an owner is not required to act immediately against every possibly infringing use to avoid a holding of abandonment”);"
- jeltz 7y agoIt is down voted due to being off topic. Copyright and trademark are two unrelated topics.
- wglb 7y agoDownvoting for disagreement has been a long-accepted practice, as noted by 'pg and 'dang.
- Hnrobert42 7y agoMy bad. I reread the guidelines and FAQ. I must have been thinking of some other forum.