If I may make a suggestion, there is a fabulous book (I know, a non-electronic medium, but there it is) by Prof of Communications Kembrew McLeod, from the U of Iowa, that takes on intellectual property rights and skewers companies like Monster Cable.
Titled, "Freedom of Expression: Resistance and Repression in an Age of Intellectual Property," McLeod explains the insanity involved in present day intellectual property rights (IPR), including how one medical research company managed to claim IPR for a cancer gene sequence they DISCOVERED (as in, didn't invent), and how if other companies want to defeat that cancer, they must first obtain a license from said IPR holder to work with the gene. I kid you not.
In a fit of intellectual outrage, McLeod actually managed to trademark the term "Freedom of Expression" in 1997.
McLeod is a member of the Creative Commons initiative, a great idea launched in part by Lawrence Lessig. I urge all readers to learn about and support it.
Well, as an IP attorney, I'd say that most of your and his problem stems from the fact that you have no idea what a trademark is or does for you, or what a patent actually covers.
Things tend to make more sense when you understand how they work.
And your "the cure for cancer is patented" claim is just pure bs. Make it a different way than claimed in the patent, and you're not infringing. Also, why bother finding this sequence if you can't get paid for it? It took millions (usually billions, about 3 billion on average for drugs) to develop this bit of information. I can't name any investors off hand that would pay for that with expectation on investment being a whopping ZERO percent.
Monsanto and Diebold do a lot of R&D work. They employ engineers and discover/develop/invent new ideas and products. The other companies would love to do away with IP so that they could just steal the ideas of smaller companies without having to worry about penalties. You should check on the members of your "altruistic" groups. You have a bunch of commies and mult-national corporations in these anti patents groups like "The Coalition for Patent Fairness."
The issue here isn't trademark (or patent) law, but Monster's vexatious abuse of their legal rights. This suit is just more of the same. Unless the marketing of Monster Golf implies a connection to Monster Cable in some direct manner, there is no marketplace confusion and therefore no infringement.
But then, Monster's track record is one of harassment and intimidation. They are a serial bad actor here, and contrary one one commenter's assertion there ARE sanctions that can be imposed on vexatious litigants like Monster. Perhaps we should start a Monster Defense Fund to speed that along.
That's exactly my point. Monster suing to enforce "legal rights" that they don't actually have is NOT RELATED to the question of whether our IP laws should be changed.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
DenverBob @ May 27th 2008 12:50AM
If I may make a suggestion, there is a fabulous book (I know, a non-electronic medium, but there it is) by Prof of Communications Kembrew McLeod, from the U of Iowa, that takes on intellectual property rights and skewers companies like Monster Cable.
Titled, "Freedom of Expression: Resistance and Repression in an Age of Intellectual Property," McLeod explains the insanity involved in present day intellectual property rights (IPR), including how one medical research company managed to claim IPR for a cancer gene sequence they DISCOVERED (as in, didn't invent), and how if other companies want to defeat that cancer, they must first obtain a license from said IPR holder to work with the gene. I kid you not.
In a fit of intellectual outrage, McLeod actually managed to trademark the term "Freedom of Expression" in 1997.
McLeod is a member of the Creative Commons initiative, a great idea launched in part by Lawrence Lessig. I urge all readers to learn about and support it.
http://creativecommons.org/
The book is a great read, and it is guaranteed to infuriate everybody except the legal departments at AT&T, Disney, Diebold, Monsanto, et al.
andy @ May 27th 2008 10:25AM
Well, as an IP attorney, I'd say that most of your and his problem stems from the fact that you have no idea what a trademark is or does for you, or what a patent actually covers.
Things tend to make more sense when you understand how they work.
And your "the cure for cancer is patented" claim is just pure bs. Make it a different way than claimed in the patent, and you're not infringing. Also, why bother finding this sequence if you can't get paid for it? It took millions (usually billions, about 3 billion on average for drugs) to develop this bit of information. I can't name any investors off hand that would pay for that with expectation on investment being a whopping ZERO percent.
Monsanto and Diebold do a lot of R&D work. They employ engineers and discover/develop/invent new ideas and products. The other companies would love to do away with IP so that they could just steal the ideas of smaller companies without having to worry about penalties. You should check on the members of your "altruistic" groups. You have a bunch of commies and mult-national corporations in these anti patents groups like "The Coalition for Patent Fairness."
kcmurphy88 @ May 27th 2008 12:34PM
The issue here isn't trademark (or patent) law, but Monster's vexatious abuse of their legal rights. This suit is just more of the same. Unless the marketing of Monster Golf implies a connection to Monster Cable in some direct manner, there is no marketplace confusion and therefore no infringement.
But then, Monster's track record is one of harassment and intimidation. They are a serial bad actor here, and contrary one one commenter's assertion there ARE sanctions that can be imposed on vexatious litigants like Monster. Perhaps we should start a Monster Defense Fund to speed that along.
andy @ May 27th 2008 4:14PM
KCmurphy,
That's exactly my point. Monster suing to enforce "legal rights" that they don't actually have is NOT RELATED to the question of whether our IP laws should be changed.