When Mueller writes:
>
>--"there is no challenge to the way the cases were classified.
>Thus, it has been conceded that of the cases we know about,
>the proportions are correct."
and the critique contained, among other observations about his
classification, the following:
"Prof. Mueller argues that name speculation should not be
counted, as �to classify it as infringement stretches trademark concepts
far beyond their traditional meaning.� Perhaps traditional meanings need
to be expanded when dealing with technological domains that are radically
different than those heretofore available. Regardless, it is not at all
clear what in Prof. Mueller�s formal education qualifies him to render such
opinions on the law."
then, in my view, in the best light to Mueller (there are worse lights to
view this type of utterly wrong remark) he is a biased advocate making
sloppy mistakes in order to "prove" his pre-conceived prejudices (it is
ludicrous to characterize him as a neutral academic). This disregard for
the facts is similar to the time that he actually posted on his web site as
a "fact" that INTA had paid for the critique (it was pro bono). There was
not a single fact to support that assertion, but it fit in with his prior
worldview and therefore did not need to be verified (like most of his study).
Mueller may have written books on telephony, but he does not know squat
about trademark law. Listen to him at your own risk.
p.s. just because I commented on one line of his recent missive, I am not
"conceding" the accuracy of rest of his rant.
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
