1) What was the biggest surprise for you in the reading? In other words, what did you read that stood out the most as different from your expectations?
The patent process and cost were the things that seemed to be the most surprising to me. Not that it isn't a wonderfully streamlined process... taking only 24.4 months and costing $2,320 to get a 3.5 year patent in place seems a touch off balance. When you consider that the majority of individual contributors to the patent process would be strained by the effort it would take to acquire such a protection from the big bad companies out there that would steal their ideas. I guess Adam was right...
2) Identify at least one part of the reading that was confusing to you.
I don't know if confused is the right word but frustrated maybe...
Despite the fact that it was ultimately successful, Haute Diggity Dog spent several hundred thousands of dollars defending itself, lost distributors, and had mer- chandise sent back as a result of the lawsuit. Is it worth a legal battle with companies like Microsoft, Hard Rock cafe, McDonald’s, Coca-Cola, or Nike? Companies are getting more aggressive about pro- tecting their trademarks and an infringement suit filed by a well-funded company can mean years of legal issues and huge legal bills.
Examples of other court rulings include:
● Hard Rain Cafe was likely to confuse consumers regarding the Hard Rock Cafe.
● Enjoy Cocaine was not a valid parody of Enjoy Coca-Cola, where both used the familiar red-and- white logo.
● Lardash was considered a valid parody of Jordache.
● Mutant of Omaha and the subtitle Nuclear Holo- caust Insurance was not a valid parody of Mutual of Omaha.
● Bagzilla was a permissible pun of Godzilla and would not confuse consumers.
● Spy Notes was a valid parody of CliffsNotes.
Seriously... I can't tell what's worse; that these larger companies sued for trademark infringement or that in the cases where they were unsuccessful; it didn't really matter, because they essentially crippled the company that was inciting parody.
3) If you were able to ask two questions to the author, what would you ask? Why?
It still hasn't happened that I have seen a response. It's a shame that my multi week protest has gone unnoticed.
4) Was there anything you think the author was wrong about? Where do you disagree with what she or he said? How?
Nothing was 'stand out' wrong in the chapter. It was fairly prescriptive. I can think of several things that I think are wrong with the process of protecting one's ideas; however, I'll save those for TruTV and the Daily Show.
No comments:
Post a Comment