Reviews that are unfair, unreasonable, sometimes outright lies, they do suck, they are very draining emotionally. But. But! I've learned along the way, and in a fairly short period of time, not to worry so much: Offering quality products, and solid customer service, it would take an extraordinary amount of such reviews to dent a solid average, and most people that bother reading reviews to begin with seem savvy enough to browse through a few more if the most recent is negative but average is high.
It still sucks when it happens, it's still a bit demoralizing, but solid quality & service makes it all pretty trivial after a while.
This is (somewhat) the view I have had on this form the beginning-- a view that I don't hear that often, perhaps because out 30-second soundbite news culture doesn't handle nuance very well... In any case:
I don't mind the actual data-mining-- techniques that require large amounts of data to implement-- and many of the specific programs we have read about. However, what I find horrifying is the deep-state secrecy and deception. Secret laws, secret courts, secret interpretations to known laws, along with lies about all of this when it comes out, lies to (and by) the congressional members who are tasked with oversight, and so on.
Further, I recognize that mine is not the only opinion. That many other people have differing views on the propriety of these programs, and that implementation of these programs should therefore be subject to the deliberative process of congressional approval and judicial adjudication. And finally, if approved at all, subject to strong & independent oversight. None of which has happened.
That said, I think both parties would be far better off recognizing the potential benefits here given the market demand, and use this as an opportunity to expand into Canada, with this person as a franchisee or something.
I'm usually with you on these types of cases, but not so much on this one: If I, traveling through Canada, came upon this store called Pirate Joe's, selling all Trader Joe's items, there is a good chance I would think they were affiliated-- perhaps this being the Canadian off-shoot.
Perhaps TJ's lack of a presence in Canada means their Trademark is unenforceable there, but I think they still have very valid reasons to fear brand confusion.
Dear Valued customer!
We regret to inform you that, due to unanticipated increases to our operating expense....
Which fallacy? You neither name nor justify your claim that I have committed one. Are you not interested in a discussion of the issue? Or just not interested if someone disagrees with your own view?
It is easy to point at something and say "that's wrong". It is more difficult to formulate a reasoned, coherent argument supporting your position. You're certainly not obligated to do the later, but without doing so your accusations amount to little more than childish foot stomping.
He's the one in charge.(assuming you mean the president?) He only had to get his own permission, and I supposes he granted it to himself. The only other permission he needed was granted to him in 2008, and then again just a few days ago. Sounds like you didn't vote that way, but that doesn't change his authority in this. These seals did not get permission. I can't speak at a conference, much less take an outside paid consulting job, without permission where I work. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that the military issues a formal reprimand when their soldiers act similarly against protocol.
Without permission. That is the key here. And they aren't getting "shit-canned" or fired. They're having a letter of reprimand put in their file. That means long-term advancement prospects are very small.
Where I work, which is not anything military or sensitive, I would face similar penalties if I had any type of outside employment or consulting without permission. I hardly see this punishment for a violation of protocol--in the military, where such things are understood to be serious-- as unreasonable.
So, basically, "In retrospect, it was a bad bet to make. Doubling down on that bad bet was, however, the correct choice."
I think we're in agreement here. I don't think Techdirt is disputing this aspect of TM law, only that it is a weakness and inconsistency with its ostensible purpose.
For my own part, although I agree with TD's general argument, I wonder if other bodies of law might not be more appropriate to this sort of issue. For example, if General Mills decided to weaken the Cheerios brand by replacing substituting the current package contents with Fruit Loops while leaving the packaging the same, that should be their choice. However, if they wanted to make a Cheerios brand box of Moth Balls, that would be both damaging to their brand and a strong potential risk for confused customers, and should not be allowed, and indeed the FDA might have some jurisdiction over mandating corrective action.
With this Pyrex case, I'm not sure what that other regulating agency or body of law would be, but neither am I sure that Trademark law is the best place for it either. What I do believe is that the inconsistent use of the Pyrex mark is irresponsible.
A trademark can apply to a product. Pyrex was not the company, Corning, it was one of their product lines. iPods are not the company, Apple is.
Otherwise, what you see as a mistake, I see as the main point of the argument: The premise is that the purpose of trademark law (in part) is to protect customers from potentially inferior products that are presented in a way that confuses the consumer about their origin.
Given this premise, techdirt is saying that it is inconsistent for the law to allow companies to use trademarks in a way that causes consumer confusion.
It is a pretty straightforward if-then statement: If part of the purpose of trademark regulation is to avoid dangerous confusion for consumers, then trademark law should regulate trademark uses by the trademark owner that may cause that same type of confusion.
To this, you might respond, "But it was only ever the purpose of trademark law to regulate the actions of those who do not own the relevant trademark. The confusion is seeks to avoid is the confusion created competitors, not the trademark holder"
Perhaps this is true-- I am not familiar with that body of law. However, if this is your counter claim, then again I would say that this is the exact argument of techdirt. The underlying premise is not, "dangerous confusion caused by a competitor is bad", but instead, "dangerous confusion is bad."
Therefore, it does not matter if the confusion is caused by a competitor or the trademark owner. Even if trademark law does not currently allow for regulating trademark usage by the owner, in order for it to be logically consistent with its original purpose, it should be concerned with any use of a trademark that could cause dangerous confusion.
I broiled steak in "pyrex" glassware. It scared me (almost literally) pissless when I took it out of the oven an placed it on a granite counter top, at which point the whole think shattered, sending glass shards in a 360-degree radius.
Luckily, I was not injured, only extremely surprised, and confused, until I googled "pyrex shattered" and found that what I thought was Pyrex was in fact "pyrex"
Unfortunately, "Until Issues are Addressed" means "Until some of these nerds find something else to focus on and we can cram it through without notice"