Actually, I don’t think they even make computer manuals any more. At least not ones that come with your computer. Either way, this manual from a Franklin Ace 1000 is seems so foreign, so unlike any documentation you might get today that its almost amusing. Its part rant, part manifesto and it breaks up the world into “THEM”, “US” and “YOU.” From the manual:
“Program manufacturers are natural paranoids. In their zeal to “copy protect” their programs, they tend to regard all customers as potential thieves”
Interestingly enough, Franklin made Apple computer clones and was successfully sued by Apple for copyright infringement of Apple’s operating system. Natural paranoids indeed.
Full article at Ironic Sans. HT to BoingBoing
Domino's Pizza Defines Puffery
This commercial amused me so much. Puffery is one of those terms that when you first hear it, you assume you misunderstood because it couldn’t possibly be a real legal term. But it is. Basically, puffery is exagerated praise for promoting or selling products. E.g. “The Godfread Law Firm is the greatest law firm ever!!!” The legal effect is that you couldn’t sue me for deceptive advertising or breach of warranty or otherwise rely upon that statement.
Victoria Espinel the Copyright Infringement Czar for the Obama Administration, wants to gather public input as to how the US should enforce copyright infringement. Here is part of the official summary of the request:
This request for comments and for recommendations for an improved
enforcement strategy is divided into two parts. In the first, the IPEC
seeks written submissions from the public regarding the costs to the
U.S. economy resulting from intellectual property violations, and the
threats to public health and safety created by infringement. In the
second part, the IPEC requests detailed recommendations from the public
regarding the objectives and content of the Joint Strategic Plan and
other specific recommendations for improving the Government’s
intellectual property enforcement efforts. Responses to this request
for comments may be directed to either of these two parts, or both, and
may include a response to one or more requests for information found in
Comments are due by Wednesday, March 24,
2010, at 5 p.m.
The full text of the request can be found here.
Send your comments to: firstname.lastname@example.org
HT to boingboing.net for publicizing this.
Thanks to Google you can find just about every existing name or trademark that exists with one little tool. . . right? Well, almost. It is possible to use Google and the Patent & Trademark Office’s own database to see if your brand idea is free to use, but there are a number of risks you take by relying on only those tools. Its tempting because the search is free. By all means, use free tools. Use them because they can give a quick “no” answer if there are obvious conflicts. But anyone building a new brand should consider what they might miss and what problems will arise with what they do miss.
Video at Colbert Nation
Its true, the Olympics have something of a super-trademark law status. This includes uses outside of athletic events as well. In addition to any rights given under trademark law, the Amateur Sports Act reserves the use of the word “Olympics”, “Olympiad”, “Citius Altius Fortius” as well as anything resembling the rings for the the United States Olympic Committee, and they can be pretty intense in their enforcement. So enjoy “Vancouverage 2010” at colbernation.com.
My latest post compares two of the more common business entities. It is definitely not a full picture of business entities, but I wanted to pick two popular entities that were on different ends of the spectrum for complexity and administrative burden. Minnesota LLCs being on the relatively cheap and easy side, Delaware Corporations requiring a bit more finesse. Both can be good choices, but neither fits in all situations.
The Minnesota Chamber of Commerce has filed suit to in the wake of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. At stake is to what extent the State of Minnesota can continue to regulate corporate expenditures on campaign advertising. Here is the article which includes a link to the complaint.
A post on Duets Blog got me thinking about parodies and trademarks. What is interesting about this area of law is that parodies of brands are commonplace, but on they are given only narrow exemptions within the law.
Take for example the number of gripe websites. This guy rips on Wal-Mart with his “Wal-ocaust” and “Wal-Qaeda” website. PETA has a website that uses the domain name murderking.com . In fact there is a website that just links to other gripe sites. Gripe sites are typically legal, because the trademarks are used to refer to the company and to comment on that company.
But parodies are often done without any serious criticism in mind. Walk through any mall and there are dozens of spin-offs of well known logos and brands that are misspelled for comic effect. Some are pretty clever too. A quick Google image search for “parody t-shirts” comes up with an “evil” version of the Levi’s logo, an AD/HD version of the band AC/DC’s logo, “Boring” and NASCAR, a Smurf and Simpsons version of the Soprano’s, a variety of versions of the Obama “Hope” logo and more. These parodies are commercial by nature and don’t always seem to be truly offering criticism of the trademark owner, which can cause trouble.
Even where lawsuits have successfully stopped parodies, they seem to persist. For example, a maker of a tee shirt reading “Enjoy Cocaine,” a parody of the iconic Coca-Cola design was successfully sued and ordered to stop making the tee shirts. See Coca-Cola Co. v. Gemini Rising, Inc., 346 F. Supp. 1183 (E.D.N.Y. 1972). Well over thirty years later, the same design can be found all over the internet.
Its hard to believe that many of these sales are likely to change the public’s perception of the trademark owner or that sales of tee shirts are damaging to their bottom line. Parodies occupy a large part of pop culture, but unfortunately sometimes operate in a gray area of the law.
I was recently quoted on the Agency Babylon blog about who owns your digital identity. It is an interesting topic and one that many companies and individuals probably haven’t fully considered in their social media policies. My comments were based on discussions with other attorneys on acceptable social media policies. Companies are often want to use social media tools to engage with their customers better, but sites like LinkedIn and Facebook are really designed for individuals so it can be difficult to control. It can also cause problems with data that would otherwise be confidential such as customer and contact lists, because your friends and contacts are at least partially public.
See the article and discussion at:
Thought leaders, issue followers weigh in on who has a stake in your professional digital life