Utah Trying To Restrict Keyword Advertising ... Again 257
Eric Goldman writes "The Utah legislature has tried to restrict keyword advertising twice before, with disastrous results. In 2004, Utah tried to ban keyword advertising in adware; that law was declared unconstitutional. In 2007, Utah tried to regulate competitive keyword advertising; after a firestorm of protests, Utah repealed the law in 2008. Despite this track record, Utah is trying to regulate keyword advertising a third time. HB 450 would allow trademark owners to block competitors from displaying certain types of keyword ads. In practice, this law is just another attempt by the Utah legislature to enact a law that doesn't help consumers at all but does help trademark owners suppress their online competition."
remove the Mormons tag (Score:4, Insightful)
Please remove the "Mormons" tag. Not all Mormons think that way. San Francisco has liberal Mormons, Texas has conservative Mormons, and there are libertarians dispersed throughout.
Re:remove the Mormons tag (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:remove the Mormons tag (Score:5, Insightful)
It would have dropped off on its own - now you all have made sure anyone who comes along the thread later will know it was there. Sometimes it is worth just chilling out and seeing where things go.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It would have dropped off on its own - now you all have made sure anyone who comes along the thread later will know it was there. Sometimes it is worth just chilling out and seeing where things go.
Maybe. But most times it's worth taking a stand and pointing out bigotry and hypocrisy in the editorial slant of holier-than-thou hipster tech blogs right when you find it.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:remove the Mormons tag (Score:4, Informative)
Those tags are user generated. Do you think it is also worthwhile to reply to every comment troll?
Re:remove the Mormons tag (Score:4, Informative)
What is bigoted about adding a "mormon" tag when over 80% of the Utah state legislature are members of the LDS church?
Re:remove the Mormons tag (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that Mormonism is the Scientology of early America. Anyone here who rallies against the COS when they do...what they do, but gives slack to the LDS, has been deluded by the idea that "real" religions are sacrosanct and shouldn't be attacked for any reason.
Bashing a religion is not bigotry, because your choice of religion is your own. Most monotheists believe that in order to have fulfillment as a sentient being, you need to be personally adored by the omnipotent, eternal creator of existence itself. To me that seems slightly self-centered. Christians worship and purport to love a god that demanded that his own son be brutally tortured and executed if he didn't want to see his favorite race of created beings done the same way. Mormonism and Scientology are even worse because they haven't been around long enough to weed out the people at the top who know that it's all lies but continue to profit from it anyway. Pointing out the flaws in that sort of thinking, or even making blanket statements about how stupid those religions are, is not bigotry, it's pointing out that a set of ideas is stupid. Not only completely different, but absolutely reasonable.
Re:remove the Mormons tag (Score:5, Insightful)
And yet you post as an Anonymous Coward. I think people have an obligation to stand up and say this without fear of reprisal. Because if you are only willing to say something without attaching yourself to it, you're really killing your own qualifications.
That said, I endorse the post above.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think people have an obligation to stand up and say this without fear of reprisal.
Which is sadly not possible. I posted AC not really because of fear of reprisal from the organizations themselves, but because society as a whole views comments like mine as hateful and bigoted (because religions that survive do so in part by convincing people that those who attack religion are bigoted/hateful/evil/enemies/etc). It's fortunate that expression is protected, but even so I prefer not to put myself at risk of being turned down for future jobs, or whatever else might happen, because someone link
Re: (Score:2)
To bad that in no way applies to the tags. That isn't an editors tag, it's the users.
Of course, now that a stink seems to be a stink, I'm going to tag it Mormon as well~
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's because those who live in glass houses would prefer no one throws stones...
Re:remove the Mormons tag (Score:5, Funny)
You have experienced the horror of keyword advertising!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
*nudge nudge*
The "Priceless" ad campaign was mastercard...
Re:remove the Mormons tag (Score:5, Insightful)
+1. It's like having a story about water melons and adding a "black people" tag.
Actually, it's like having a story about laws regarding information technology and someones persecution complex [wikipedia.org] turns the thread about their religion, the places where it is practiced, and the vrious shades it comes in.
Re: (Score:2)
Back in Illinois during the 1840s, there was a group of black people who really really (and I mean really) liked watermelons. They just couldn't get along with all the other black people - ones who could pretty much take watermelons or leave them, or ones who liked them only once in a while. A state of hostilities existed with the ones who didn't like them at all, because they taste like cucumbers a bit.
Anyway, to cut a long story
Re: (Score:2)
No.It's like having a story about watermelons and giving it a farm tag.
....but I grow watermelons in my garden.
How dare you suggest all melons come from farms.
Hey, being offended is fun. I see why people do it.
Re: (Score:2)
San Francisco has liberal EX-Mormons
Fixed that for you. Or rather, made a cheap joke out of that for you since you are probably right.
Re:remove the Mormons tag (Score:5, Funny)
Please remove the "Mormons" tag. Not all Mormons think that way. San Francisco has liberal Mormons, Texas has conservative Mormons, and there are libertarians dispersed throughout.
Oh, c'mon, Dude!! What's wrong with you? Geez... Christian-bashing is the last socially acceptable form of bigotry left to Americans, and now you want to take that away, too?
Re: (Score:2)
Christian-bashing is the last socially acceptable form of bigotry left to Americans, and now you want to take that away, too?
Non-Mormon Christians generally don't consider Mormons to be Christians, so to most Christians, this is not Christian-bashing anymore than Islam-bashing or Jew-bashing is Christian-bashing. Oh but wait, now that's three religions that get bashed, so I guess your "last acceptable bigotry" whine is out the window, too.
in what sense are those socially acceptable? (Score:2)
You must live in a weird location if Jew-bashing, for example, is socially acceptable. In some countries, it's not even legal!
I don't think you can even bash all of them! (Score:2)
Or at least I was told that it's no longer appropriate to refer to Catholics as Papists. :(
Re: (Score:2)
Or at least I was told that it's no longer appropriate to refer to Catholics as Papists. :(
Since when?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, my take is that most people consider Mormons to be Christians, although kind of an odd sect. But, many Christians refuse to acknowledge Mormons to be Christian. Actually I've talked to more than one Protestant that even consider Catholics to be non-Christian. It all seems a bit silly to me - If you consider Jesus holy, you're a Christian. If you don't, you're not. Some Christians just have very very different beliefs and practices than other Christians.
Re:remove the Mormons tag (Score:4, Insightful)
If you consider Jesus holy
By that standard, Jews and Muslims are Christians too!
Re: (Score:2)
Jews, Muslims, and others consider Jesus to be historically important, but not necessarily divinely inspired or in the direct lineage of God. Maybe we're using different interpretations of the word "holy".
IANA religious scholar.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:remove the Mormons tag (Score:5, Funny)
I think the difference boils down like this:
Re: (Score:2)
Jews don't consider Christ to be a prophet. Muslims do. Christ isn't any part of the jewish religion. Individual Jews have opinions, usually ranging from "there was no such person" to "he was a decent rabbi". Prophet doesn't even get into it. Unless you're talking about the Christian sect Jews for Jesus.
Re: (Score:2)
There are always going to be people of a relgious slant who believe they are the holy guardians and safekeepers of the one true message. These people will always consider those who present the message in a different manner to be heritics and thus just as unholy as those who reject the message straight out.
Regardless, those who don't see themselves in that light (over that particular message) will often group everyone with similar messages into the same label. Be it Christian, Muslim, Liberal, Conservative,
Re: (Score:2)
The matter is somewhat more seriously defined than that. In general The Nicene Creed [spurgeon.org] is regarded as the main Christianity test, in order to distinguish it from doctrines like Arianism, or other religions entirely like Judaism or Islam. Reading over it, it seems pretty clear that just about every modern day
Re: (Score:2)
Reading over it, it seems pretty clear that just about every modern day Christian sect accepts that creed in whole or in large part, even those that say they don't.
Yeah the part most portestant christians have a problem with is
"And I believe one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church"
That pretty much makes the creed Catholics only right there.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't think that "Catholic" in that context means what you think it means. It is not a reference to the Roman Catholic Church: rather, it means "universal", as in "he has catholic tastes". The use of Catholic by itself to designate the Roman Catholic Church is shorthand. There are other churches that consider themselves "Catholic".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"And I believe one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church"
catholic
adj.
1. Of broad or liberal scope; comprehensive
2. Including or concerning all humankind; universal
3. Catholic
a. Of or involving the Roman Catholic Church.
b. Of or relating to the universal Christian church.
c. Of or relating to the ancient undivided Christian church.
d. Of or relating to those churches that have claimed to be representatives of the ancient undivided church.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing with Mormons is that they don't actually believe in the divinity of Jesus. Jesus being both "God" and the "Son of God" is a central tenent of Christianity. Mormons believe Jesus was a man who became divine--mainstream Protestant Christianity completely rejects that idea. To them Jesus was fully divine and fully human during his time on Earth (yeah, I know, it's a bunch of crazy mutually exclusive crap, but I'm just telling you what Christians actually believe or at least are "supposed" to belie
Re: (Score:3)
No, he's God's special son. In mormon doctrine, everyone is one of god's children, just jesus was the special one who was sent to atone for everybody elses sins. Hell, even lucifer is gods son, he just wan
Re: (Score:2)
Well first, let me just state I'm only repeating what I've heard from Protestant friends. So if they got Mormon doctrine wrong... well, hey, not surprising. I do have several Mormon friends, but contrary to popular belief, when they're not out specifically looking for "recruits", they're not pushy about their faith like a lot of more "mainstream" Christians are, so I've not learned a whole lot about Mormon doctrine straight from the horses mouth, as it were.
But one thing my Protestant friends always stres
Re: (Score:2)
Christian: a person who adheres to Christianity, a monotheistic religion centered on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth and interpreted by Christians to have been prophesied in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament.
Christian: a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings.
Mormon: Those who believe in the Book of Mormon, a sacred text that adherents believe to be "another testament of Jesus Christ" and testifies of the Bible as part of the religion's canon.
Mo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I never knew that Jews and Moslems were Christians.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually I think the link can be made. Utah is the Mormon core. The culture starts here (I live here) and radiates outward. Almost every lawmaker is Mormon. They are informed in their economic policies by the church. This law is, in effect, largely Mormon. Church and state are not so separated here. If you lived here, you wouldn't be considered to be a very good Mormon.
Re:remove the Mormons tag (Score:4, Interesting)
Ah, but you're not supposed to be proud in your belief, but humble in it. After all, did not St. James Buffett describe the seven deadly sins thusly:
For what it's worth, I know two Mormon couples. They're very nice people, they don't have multiple wives, and are very active in the community. They don't proselytize on the evils of keyword advertising. And that proves this isn't "a Mormon thing" because, as we all know, the plural of "anecdote" is "data".
Re:remove the Mormons tag (Score:5, Insightful)
But most Mormons do. They are a fairly conservative bunch on the whole. The story is about a conservative, Republican, Mormon dominated legislature trying to get the internet to play by corporate rules. The "mormon" tag is just as appropriate as a "republican" or "conservative" or "corporations" tag on the story.
People can legitimately object to stereotypes and prejudices. But sometimes those stereotypes are things that are legitimately true and that need to be said, even if they do offend. Not allowing this leads to situations in which we now find ourselves [canada.com]. According to the UN, we can now no longer "defame" religions or their followers, no matter how much we disagree with their beliefs or practices.
Forget the rough stuff. Mormons, by dogma, can't drink coffee and tea. I personally think this is a stupid prohibition. Muslims, again by dogma, can't draw pictures of Mohammad. I personally think this a really stupid prohibition. Catholics( especially in third world countries), again by dogma, can't use condoms. I personally think this is an appallingly stupid prohibition which costs lives every single day. I think the people who follow these prohibitions are being unreasonable, inconsiderate and irresponsible.
My opinions here could land me in jail in many countries for being "bigoted" or for "stereotyping" or for "hate speech". Some people will say that I'm tarnishing the image of whole groups of people, or that not all people in those groups support these prohibitions. Tell that to the people living in Utah, or Saudi Arabia, or Italy, who have to put up with prohibitions imposed on them in the name of the silent religious majority.
In conclusion, it is not automatically "Wrong(TM)" to stereotype a religious community. In fact, when that communities religious practices start to infringe on others liberties, it is right to stereotype, lampoon and indeed "defame" those practices, and to force that community to reflect upon itself. Religion should never be except from criticism, and especially satire.
I agree on most of that, but this seems a stretch (Score:2)
I'm no fan of Mormonism, or Catholicism or Islam for that matter, all of which are backwards, right-wing religions, so I agree with most of your post.
But I don't really see what this particular dispute over trademarks has to do with Mormonism. Whether non-owners of a trademark paying for search results under those terms as keywords is, or ought to be, a violation of trademark law has been argued over [ssrn.com] in a number of states, and I don't see particularly clear religious faultlines in that debate. If supporting
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but you are still wrong. If you knew anything about Mormonism, especially with respect to secular law, you would realize the the "mormon" tag is not as appropriate as you assume. There are lots of conservatives in UT, yes. And lots of Mormons to be sure. But its not like UT is an island of conservatism out here in the Intermountain West. In fact, they seem to dominate until you are within sight of the Pacific.
Its one thing to point out the idiosyncrasies of a religion or group. Personally, I am
Re: (Score:2)
Religion should never be except from criticism, and especially satire.
You know the pope would slap you if it wasn't for this demonic Internet anonymity.
Intersection of Utah, Mormon, Republican, and more (Score:2)
But most Mormons do. They are a fairly conservative bunch on the whole. The story is about a conservative, Republican, Mormon dominated legislature trying to get the internet to play by corporate rules. The "mormon" tag is just as appropriate as a "republican" or "conservative" or "corporations" tag on the story.
Meh. Speaking as a Mormon who's lived a good chunk of his life in Utah, I'd say that while you're correct, any of the tags you mention are problematic. The source of this kind of mistake isn't reall
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I suggest you review the dissertation of Max Ford Mcbride, BYU, 1976. "Effect of Visual Stimuli In Electric Aversion Therapy"
You might also want to look at the work of Dr. RObert Card and the relationship with LDS social services.
Process should be fair. (Score:3, Interesting)
Businesses should be able to protect their trademarks but the process should be fair. Little guys who don't compete in the same market should not get squashed.
Re:Process should be fair. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
To further your point, it is quite common for car dealerships to sell used cars that they receive in trade for their new cars. These used cars are often not the same brand as the dealership's "primary" brand. Hence would be neither odd nor wrong for "John Smith Ford" to want use the "Toyota" key word in the sales of all of their used Toyotas.
Re: (Score:2)
Would you say it would be fair if some called Toyota decided to buy that word for their business?
I'm curious about the general opinion here, as they don't let me buy "Torrent" (NOT bittorrent, just Torrent) as someone (google didn't disclose who) claims to have that trademark. Torrent is my wife's last name.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, it's one thing if a car dealership who is not Toyota starts buying "Toyota" as a keyword. Arguably this is similar to buying Toyota.com and could be misleading to customers.
Totally disagree. If someone gets a consumer reports article that says "Better than a Toyota!", they should be able to promote that information with a keyword ad (among a host of other examples). As long as you're not tricking buyers into thinking some product is a Toyota when it's not, it should be fair game and free speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Rather than Toyota, the best example to illustrate this principle should be Nissan [nissan.com]. The little guy is still holding on, but it's a tough fight.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, Mike Rowe [wikipedia.org] eventually gave in to MS and relinquished control over his software promoting website... Maybe Mr. Toyota and Mr. Ford should just change their names if they want to start businesses - Those names are already taken. Thank the gods my last name isn't Disney.
So, Google will have a disclaimer... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Or they will use their experience in China to comply with the law wherever it is used.
Restricting Use of Language (Score:2)
Restricting the use of language doesn't work.
Actually it does... (Score:4, Insightful)
Restricting the use of language doesn't work.
Actually it has and it historically does. That's why people do it. But this debate isn't really about restricting language, it's, deciding, who gets to own the definitions of words, the government, or the private sector.
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up.
The crappy thing is that only the dogmatic try to do something a third time and expect different results. Something about Einstein and insanity.
Orthodoxy in the face of real truths is an appalling sight.
Seems a sensible restriction (Score:3, Funny)
It seems Utah merely wants to prevent advertisers from getting married to too many keywords.
Men kissing? (Score:2)
Does it have something to do with one of their favorite search terms, referenced here
http://xkcd.com/522/ [xkcd.com]
They want to see men kissing, but they don't want to see ads targeted to people who search for men kissing?
Re: (Score:2)
HB 450 would allow trademark owners to block competitors from displaying certain types of keyword ads.
I don't get it. Does someone in Utah own the trademark "Men Kissing"?
Not as clear cut as you might think. (Score:3, Insightful)
First off, I note that the "mormon" tag on the article. If there were a quote from a black leader, I wonder, would you tag the article as "black"?
I would not be so quick to bury this guy in your haste to have weaker trademarks. There is an interesting question, buried in this article. It is, what does a trademark actually buy? A trademark is a sort of a definition of an invented word, administered today by the government. A search word is as also a definition of a word, administered by a private corporation and sold to the highest bidder.
When Linux trademarks "Linux", it is to say that he has the rights to the definition of this word in some way as it pertains to his product. But, if I buy Linux on Google, then, I get the right to define the word by having my definition be placed in a preferred position.
Thus, you almost have to view trademark as a contest between the federal first come first serve word ownership mechanism, and, a private enterprise word as an auction mechanism advanced by the likes of Google.
There is a real dividing line between corporation and state, and the irony here is that those who would argue that trademarks should be less powerful by definition argue that words should be auctioned, rather than licensed, and conversely, those who argue for strong government trademarks ultimately argue that the government should control more the meaning of words rather than the free market.
I would be willing to bet that leftists who casually seek to undermine business by eliminating trademarks might be well advised to rethink that position, as they should so many others. I can't imagine that they of all people would really want a world where the definitions of words are decided by the highest bidder. It runs the risk of undermining everything that they stand for, and for that reason I'd have to conclude that people rushing to digitally behead "the mormon" might well consider that the "the mormon" is doing them a favor.
Re: (Score:2)
You have to consider fair use. I just used "Coca-Cola" in my post. Is that infringement of their trademark? You would say no, and you would be right. Buying an ad-word triggering on Coca-Cola would ALSO fall under fair use. If
The unfortunate reality of government (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
However, you could make a law expliciting saying outlawing adwords is illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
We need penalties for representatives who pass unconstitutional laws. It should probably be a criminal act. Does it make sense that the highest law of our land can be violated with no penalties? And by those who swear an oath to uphold it?
Utah? (Score:4, Funny)
This is a state where 58% of its inhabitants claim membership in a single religion, and the overwhelming majority of the legislature comes from this demographic. They're not exactly known for their progressive views on technology. Might I suggest we kindly totally and completely ignore this state? They're clearly out of touch with not just reality, but the rest of the country as well. At worst, Utah-nians just won't be able to go online, and golly gee what a shame that would be. -_- Now go ahead and mod me to hell for stating the obvious. Or can we at least re-classify this under "It's funny, laugh." ?
Re: (Score:2)
No, do not ignore it becasue it has ties into every major state government as well as the federal government.
It's is a blight on freedom, but that doesn't mean it should be ignored.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, we should both totally AND completely ignore them? That's a pretty extreme position. I would have just said completely ignored them.
I was hedging my bets. Someone might be able to provide an argument against totally, if only because of it's ties to surfer culture in the 90s, and completely on its own could have one of its alternate meanings applied, which is to "make perfect". Clearly the situation has not been made perfect, so by combining both totally and completely, I would posit that the sentence is much less ambiguous than before. ^_^ In other news, it's not yet noon, so cut me some friggin' mutter, mutter slack... brraaaaiinnss...
Uh, WordPerfect and Novell? (Score:2, Informative)
They're not exactly known for their progressive views on technology
You mean, like, when the mormons invented WordPerfect, one of the first great Word Processors, or pioneered networking with Novell, the first great networking company?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Ashton_(executive) [wikipedia.org]
http://www.mormonwiki.com/Ray_Noorda [mormonwiki.com]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You mean, like, when the mormons invented WordPerfect, one of the first great Word Processors, or pioneered networking with Novell, the first great networking company?
Whoah. Hey, did you, like, know Robert Oppenheimer worked on the Manhattan Project and studied Hinduism? So, like, the entire religion of Hinduism can claim it invented the nuke! That's, like, totally and completely awesome! Dude!!!!!! -_- /Sarcasm.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess I'd better flee the country then, because hell if I want american culture validated by anything I do. O_
It doesn't matter if you flee, because you are a product of American culture.
a set of circumstances that operates completely and totally independent of "culture" and has more to do with the local environment they were raised in
Well, uh, the local environment is usually what culture is really all about... culture is the rules that are permissible behind closed doors as much as open ones.
But of cour
Re:Uh, WordPerfect and Novell? &Linux/Unix too (Score:3, Funny)
You forgot to mention SCO! The people from which Unix was pirated to form Linux! Where would tech be today without great Utahnian innovators like Darl McBride and Blake Stowell?
Re: (Score:2)
At least they aren't muslims!
Yeah, because the the Qur'an (first published ca. 610AD) emphasizes the use of empirical observation and reason, and had technology and building know-how far ahead of its time. Thank Allah they didn't continue that tradition.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because the the Qur'an (first published ca. 610AD) emphasizes the use of empirical observation and reason, and had technology and building know-how far ahead of its time
Ok, so now you are bashing mormons by sticking up for the muslims. My oh my. But let's do some basic math.. you can celebrate a bunch of muslims that have been dead for, let's see, um, 2009 - 610 = 1399 years, whose best claim to fame is stealing a bunch of math from India. Or, you can celebrate some fairly clever people that invent
Re: (Score:2)
Hello? It was a compliment... Seriously... Can't even compliment muslims anymore without some christian screaming "help, help, I'm being oppressed!" Please take your irrational key-stabbing somewhere else.
How could I be oppressed by Islam? In fact, how could any man EVER be oppressed by Islam?
Islam is a much better deal for men than Christianity is, particularly American christianity. Hell, in Islam, men get to have all the money, don't have to share the road with women, get all the power, dominate the hom
Re: (Score:2)
"How could I be oppressed by Islam? In fact, how could any man EVER be oppressed by Islam?"
If you are being sarcastic, you need to state so explictly.
If not, you need to educate yourself. This is simple, just Google the words "Jizya" and "Dhimmi". It will only take a few seconds, from there you should figure out pretty quickly - why we need to fight these people.
They declared war on us, we did nothing to provoke them. Ever wonder which modern religion still practices slavery?
Re: (Score:2)
At least they aren't muslims!
Yeah, because the the Qur'an (first published ca. 610AD) emphasizes the use of empirical observation and reason, and had technology and building know-how far ahead of its time.
Very true. How far would computing have gotten with 1's but no 0's?
Thank Allah they didn't continue that tradition.
Also true. Too bad the idiot Christian world had to pick up where they went off.
Re: (Score:2)
Also true. Too bad the idiot Christian world had to pick up where they went off.
Credit where credit is due: there was a long period of taking people's heads off and burning them at the stake before they picked up on the use of empirical observation and reason. Even today, empirical observation and reason is met with healthy skepticism -- I mean, compared to Jesus, what has empiricism ever done for YOU? /sarcasm
Re: (Score:2)
emphasizes the use of empirical observation
About Jews and Christians:
"Seize them and slay them wherever you find them: and in any case take no friends or helpers from their ranks." Sura 4:89
Utah leads the country in egovernment (Score:2)
At least, that's according to the Pew Center on the States [pewcenteronthestates.org]. Compare states' report cards with that linked page.
But yeah, the keyword legislation is stupid.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They're not exactly known for their progressive views on technology.
Actually that's not true, either of the church or of the residents of Utah.
The church is very progressive (among churches) in its adoption of technology, both mass media for delivering its message to the world, and computer technology for its daily operations.
With regard to the state, there was a time a few years ago when Utah was second only to California in state GDP attributable to software development. I don't mean percentage of GDP, either, I mean dollars. With the demise of WordPerfect and decli
Re: (Score:2)
They're clearly out of touch with not just reality, but the rest of the country as well.
The rest of the country where almost 80% claim membership to some other form of belief in the supernatural powers of Jesus Christ?
Re: (Score:2)
Surely you mean C# programmers [aegisub.net]?
Beyond State Power (Score:2)
Trademark (Score:4, Informative)
A trademark is a sort of a definition of an invented word, administered today by the government.
Not exactly. The term "Windows" is trademarked, should Microsoft be the only entity to be able to purchase "windows?" of course not.
There is a real dividing line between corporation and state, and the irony here is that those who would argue that trademarks should be less powerful by definition argue that words should be auctioned, rather than licensed, and conversely, those who argue for strong government trademarks ultimately argue that the government should control more the meaning of words rather than the free market.
Neither of these arguments are correct.
Trademarks are names and logos under which businesses trade. The reason why they are protected is to protect the reputation of the institution that holds them. Believe it or not, there is "fair use" of trade marks. It is perfectly legal to use someone else's trademark if you using only enough of it to identify the business.
For instance. A car dealership named "Planet Subaru" has the trademark "Planet Subaru." As a dissatisfied customer, I can create a website named "www.planetsubarusucks.com." I can even use the trademarked name "Planet Subaru" on this site as long as there is no confusion that I am associated with them, only as much of the trademark as necessary to identify the business, and that I do not intend to trade on their mark.
It is perfectly legitimate for a ford dealer to buy "toyota" to get business from a competitor. Trademarks are not for censorship.
Re: (Score:2)
That's because Microsoft was wrongly given the trademark. You are not allowed to trademark common words. See Lindows lawsuit, and why Microsoft gave Lindows shitloads of money to go away after Microsoft sued Lindows.
All documented here, your local slashdot archive.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that MS's trademark is on "Microsoft Windows", not just on Windows. And Lindows was clearly trying to trade on the Windows name. Only an idiot (or a rabid /. poster) would think otherwise.
Is there anything... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is there anything that leftist nanny state liberals and right-wing fundamentalist bible-thumpers won't try and ban?
Corporate donations.
No Big Deal (Score:2)
Not really seeing the big deal (Score:2)
Meh. Personally I suspect that the
Re: (Score:2)