In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Kent Crispin writes:
> 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!".
Of course they will. :-)-O
> "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.
The right of freedom of expression is restricted only by law (and
frollowing from that by the courts). Not by the K*ent.
> > 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.
That's a typical K*nt rethorical tactic, not adressing a point that
hasn't been made.
>
> > > 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.
Is balderdash PC speak for nonsense?
>
> > 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).
Who cares? That generalization doesn't fit with the specific point he
makes, and he's right.
> 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.
Always? Karl was quite specific. And coming from a developing country,
I do know what I am talking about.
> > 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.
The K*nt knows best, leave it to the K*nt.
el
