2 ms·

I saw where you state the opposite and I indicated that by saying "great we agree!" But you also said this: > I agree with the OP that this kind of stuff has a

I saw where you state the opposite and I indicated that by saying "great we agree!" But you also said this: > I agree with the OP that this kind of stuff has absolutely no business being in a trademark document, of all things. What did you mean by this if not that trademark cannot be used to enforce where/when/how a trademark is used? Rust wants to do exactly that and you say they have no business doing so under trademark law. Can you please clarify? Because your statements seem contradictory.

Turing_Machine 4y ago
> What did you mean by this if not that trademark cannot be used to enforce where/when/how a trademark is used? I meant exactly what I said -- that putting this in a trademark document is a bad idea. That is not me "stating the opposite" in any sense. You do understand that there are many things that are legal but which are nonetheless bad ideas, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect Actually, I think you do understand that, and are basically just trolling at this point. We're done here.