On Sat, Mar 06, 1999 at 05:10:33PM +0000, Karl Auerbach wrote:
>
> > ... I wager you $100 that 3 out of 4 TM owners favor free
> > expression.
>
> In other words you believe that folks the Nike sportswear company are
> going to favor free expression of the word "nike" in all areas not
> *STRICTLY* covered by their mark?
No. That's not what I mean. I mean that if you ask Mike Heltzer or
David Maher or other people who are or have been involved in TM
issues whether they favor free expression, they will say "Yes!".
"Free expression" is not an absolute. It is not considered protected
free expression to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater; you can be sued
for liable or slander; you can't plagarise documents; you can't
freely reproduce copyrighted documents; you can't sell porno to
children; you can't sell kiddie porn to anyone; you can't use a
trademark that belongs to someone else. A right of free expression
is always tempered by consideration of the social good involved.
> As has been widely demonstrated, the tendency of mark holders is to expand
> the scope of thir coverage beyond what is given to them by law.
>
> As such, mark holders are directly in opposition to the free
> expressionists.
Karl, they are ALSO IN DIRECT OPPOSITION TO OTHER TM HOLDERS WHO
MIGHT WANT TO USE THE NAME IN OTHER CONTEXTS.
> > There is no meaningful
> > opposite to a registry constituency.
>
> Balderdash. Registries sell domain name licenses, other folks buy them.
> They are in direct opposition.
Balderdash yourself. They are also in cooperation. It is simply
not the case that all business relationships are in "direct
opposition" -- win-win relationships are very important, as well.
> And the business constituency is in contrast to all those users of the net
> who do so for non-business reasions -- education, churches, community
> groups, fun, etc.
There is no obvious reason that chuches (for example) would be
against business interests. There is no obvious reason that Stanford
University would be anti-business (for example). There is no obvious
reason that community groups would be against the businesses in their
communities -- in fact, they all could be very much pro-business (for
example).
Nor is there any obvious reason why the business interests would be
always opposite the interests of churches, or schools, or
communities. Certainly in some cases they will be. But in other
cases they won't be.
> But all these opposing interests have been quietly eliminated from
> effective participation in the DNSO by relegating all of them to a single
> category in which they get but one vote against the combined weight of all
> the "recognized" constituencies.
Nor is there any obvious reason why other constituencies would always
vote in a block against the interests of these groups, even if they had
a unified interest.
> The creation of these constituencies is nothing less than a flat out
> contravention of the notions espoused in the white paper.
...as you read them, of course.
--
Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
