4 ms·

There is virtually no downsides to being petty assholes. People will even come out of the woodwork to justify your behavior and explain you have no choice than

There is virtually no downsides to being petty assholes. People will even come out of the woodwork to justify your behavior and explain you have no choice than being an asshole. Apple, Disney, Coca Cola, Nike back in the days. Any company with enough money in both marketing and legal department will usually be utter assholes regarding their trademark.

ryandrake 2y ago
Yes, these companies are so rich, and their targets so comparatively poor, that they're not risking anything by spamming lawsuits. It's like a rich individual going to some developing country and suing poor people for their meager possessions, for no other reason than because they can.
rqtwteye 2y ago
How else are their armies of lawyers supposed to justify their existence? It's the same as having a ton of UX people on staff who have to constantly move buttons around and change color schemes to stay busy.
Moru 2y ago
The law makes it a nesessity. If they don't do all they can to protect their trademark, they loose it. It's not like copyright. And ofcourse the lawyers have to make themselves needed somehow.
- makeitdouble 2y ago
  This is a purposeful misleading stance propagated by trademark handlers, companies don't have to be assholes: 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...
- mihaaly 2y ago
  It is not protecting their trademark man! You walk in the streets of Costa Rica, see a yellow-blue sign with a shopping chart and ugly characters writing "Super Mario" with some spanish text underneath and then you decide, ah, I will buy games here rather than from Nintendo! The seconds sentence is more like it. The danger to Nintendo is from their own stupid overacting lawyers.
marcosdumay 2y ago
Yes. We should create downsides to being petty assholes.

ryandrake 2y ago

Yes, these companies are so rich, and their targets so comparatively poor, that they're not risking anything by spamming lawsuits. It's like a rich individual going to some developing country and suing poor people for their meager possessions, for no other reason than because they can.

rqtwteye 2y ago

How else are their armies of lawyers supposed to justify their existence? It's the same as having a ton of UX people on staff who have to constantly move buttons around and change color schemes to stay busy.

Moru 2y ago

The law makes it a nesessity. If they don't do all they can to protect their trademark, they loose it. It's not like copyright. And ofcourse the lawyers have to make themselves needed somehow.

makeitdouble 2y ago
This is a purposeful misleading stance propagated by trademark handlers, companies don't have to be assholes: 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...
mihaaly 2y ago
It is not protecting their trademark man! You walk in the streets of Costa Rica, see a yellow-blue sign with a shopping chart and ugly characters writing "Super Mario" with some spanish text underneath and then you decide, ah, I will buy games here rather than from Nintendo! The seconds sentence is more like it. The danger to Nintendo is from their own stupid overacting lawyers.

marcosdumay 2y ago

Yes. We should create downsides to being petty assholes.