> A negative ad doesn't fall under trademark law because while customers may > be getting hoodwinked, the ad does not try to fake out brand names.
Nope but it becomes subject to other laws, in Europe anyway. It's something I have never understood about the way capitalism is implemented in the US. If you have money: ...you can get out on bail. ...you can get treated for your illness. ...you can hire attorneys and win most any case. ...you can win on smearing your opponent rather than actually marketing yourself. I digress, but it does suggest why there's also a difference in patent litigation (which is what this case started being about). -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
