By Paul
I found this article by Chris Hartman amusing because the word “theft” is used so frequently outside of its literal legal definition. The article searches Google for instances when people write “_______ is theft” with the rankings shown below.
Its a brilliant example of how people distort the truth by using a vague or general definition of a word with a lot of emotional weight. Like “theft.” When you use a word like “theft” to mean any general sort of taking or use of a right, it ceases to mean theft. Its also interesting to note that publishers appear four times in that list, including the top spot, but in none of those cases do they mean actual theft. Infringement is bad, but its also hard to conceptualize. Theft is immediate and visceral.
Hat tip to Marginal Revolution.
By Paul
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
By Paul
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.
By Paul
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
either part.
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: intellectualproperty@omb.eop.gov
HT to boingboing.net for publicizing this.
By Paul
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.
