Re: [IFWP] Re: Trademark Enforcement at the TLD Level. WAS Re:alternate

[Karl Auerbach]

> Um, when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in which I practice
> tells me that trademarks are not property, I listen, and I don't
> much give a rip about what academia says.

Cite?

I don't really care whether the word "property" is attached to that
particular form of "intellectual property" created under both Federal and
State laws and which we call trade and service marks.

All I care about is that whatever it is, I can license its use under
conditions I dictate, I can invoke legal enforcement to keep others from
using it, I can borrow money on its market value, and I can transfer my
rights, whatever we call them, to another, and so forth.

So, perhaps it isn't "property" but it has all the attributes that one
normally associates with "property".  So, for the sake of convenience, I
believe, we can safely use the word "property" without any danger of
leading anyone astray.  ;-)

                --karl--