| |
OK, here's something I ran across with the perspective that companies
getting "too" tight with trade marks and trade dress control are doing
themselves a disservice.... maybe I'm wrong on this (IANAL) and TLC hands
are *not* tied or at least are "self-tied", so to speak.
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2000/0724/6603132a.html
Virginia Postrel is editor of Reason, one of my favorites.
FUT off-topic.debate
In lugnet.space, Tim Courtney writes:
> (replied via email, I don't totally agree, but I don't totally disagree either)
>
> -Tim
>
> In lugnet.space, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > <massive snippage>
> >
> > In lugnet.space, Tim Courtney writes:
> >
> > > Get a clue.
> >
> > > BTW - I want to work for TLC
> >
> > These two statements may not be compatible with each other. I've said it
> > before, but it bears repeating. You catch more flies with honey than with
> > vinegar.
> >
> > Drilling in...
> >
> > Look, even the person who enforced the trademark said that TLC hands are
> > tied on this.
> >
> > Unless Mark was prepared to go through the standard licensing hoops, it
> > wasn't blessed by TLC, and if it's not blessed by TLC, it's an infringing
> > use and they *have* to enforce the trademark or risk losing it.
> >
> > If that makes me a TLC apologist, so be it. But I don't think that
> > statements like: "This really irks the snot out of me." are, on the face of
> > it, helpful.
> >
> > ++Lar
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
18 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
