That was easy. Anyone who’s ever dealt with the South knows Coke works a generic name for soda or pop down there. All it takes is one southern waitress waiting on a southern person both using the local word for “pop” for trademark infringement to happen.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse. How many years should those people serve?
Meanwhile look at long list of things that have lost their trademark value. Everytime you use a trademark in a way not approved by it’s issuer you rob it of value. Further diluting it, and all the money spent getting name recognition behind it. When your office misuses Xerox you push the trademark closer to the edge. You’re taking money out of Xerox’s future pocket, and putting past money down the toilet, by your miss use of their intellectual property. Even if it isn’t illegal you’re doing the very same thing pirates do.
Truth, but if normal file sharing becomes impractical I expect a thriving industry of VPN services to pop up in legal safe heavens. Remember when pirates used to pay to access special newsgroup servers?
.
That is a good possibility. It’ll be interesting to see what if any counter measures pop up.
So what? Are those those southern waiters and waitresses criminal thieves deserving of jail? They did legally violate intellectual property after all. Just like a pirate.
edit: oh snap oops could a mod fix my quote in the above post?
So you claim use of Xerox as a generic word doesn’t rob Xerox of the money they’ve invested in their trademark? That was my point. Is there a different logic with which you label copyright infringement as theft?
That’s not what I said. I said that instructing my secretary to xerox something does not constitute a trademark violation. You said I was wrong, and you were quite rude about it. I want either a cite to support your position, or an apology.
Until you provide one or the other, we have nothing to discuss.
Edit: OK, I accept the offered apology. Response to your point to follow by separate post to avoid missing edit window.
The example I gave does not cost Xerox any money. We have a copy machine in my office. If I tell my secretary to xerox something, to copy something, or to use the magic box to make more of something, she is going to go to the copy machine and run my document through it in accordance with my instructions. No money changes hands as a result of that transaction. We don’t sell copies of documents as “Xerox” products. No one will be more or less likely to purchase Xerox products because of what I said to my secretary in the privacy of my office. No trademark infringement has occurred.
The example you gave is different. A restaurant customer asks for a Coke ™. The restaurant serves a similar product not sold by Coca-Cola, Inc. The customer may be confused, thinking they received a Coke when in fact they recieved a different product. This may make them more or less likely to purchase Coke products in the future. Infringement has occured.
Yea but the more you use Xerox to mean copy the less it means Xerox™ and the more it means generic copy, and the less rights Xerox has over it. Trademark owners lose their rights when a term shifts to far into generic usage. Rights over name recognition Xerox has invested considerable resources into establishing.
I don’t know if the French measure will completely stamp out piracy in France and I imagine technological systems will stay one step ahead of enforcibility (is that a word?) However, I can imagine it might make for example, parents more aware and wary of their children’s activities online, and in general may deter a signficant chunk of casual computer users who download and upload copyright infringeing material.
Overly Simplistic Note: An establishment serving a soda product calling (relatively) interchangeable items by the other’s name is using the name in a commercial fashion – it’s selling one product but calling it another (whether out of laziness or duplicitousness is irrelevant).
ETA: Remember kids, refresh your browser before posting!