Jump to content

Celery Man

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    12653
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Celery Man

  1. lol Louisiana cousins of my wife have a baby bottle with Coca Cola in it for the 18 month old
  2. It does suck to hop into that thread looking for injury updates and surly takes and find instead 12 pages of meta arguments shit flinging from decades old shaggy feuds.
  3. https://www.instagram.com/reel/DCzH6d-O2r2/?igsh=MWtpbzF2bHFmOGd5Yg==
  4. how did we fucking miss on this
  5. I need these guys together on a live recording https://www.instagram.com/p/DCuK4g6OVr0/?igsh=eGZkYzVlMjBtdHNw (embed not working)
  6. They should make a Michael Kors RAV4
  7. Right, but this is what I'm doing a poor job of trying to get you to explain to me - in the fictional case of Elon putting Patagonia branding on a Cyber Truck to try and win back granola EV buyers, that would be clearly deceptive to the consumers. You keep saying that people wouldn't be confused and think that Patagonia is now making cars - of course not. But they would still be confused about the involvement of Patagonia and all that that means to them, and may make a choice to buy the product that they wouldn't have made without the deceptive use of the trademark. It's maybe a bit harder imagine that someone might do that with a $100k purchase but it would be easy with some normal consumable - to customers, Patagonia means ethically source and eco-friendly and durably made and perhaps some kind of guarantee and even that the profits go to some environmental organization. If someone puts that Patagonia logo on some non-outdoor clothing related consumable and I quickly choose to buy the one from the company that makes durable eco-conscious products with a lifetime guarantee and profits that benefit fighting global warming but it turns out that this is a bottom of the barrel cheap piece of shit drop-shipped from the coal burning plastics factory in Shenzhen, have I not been deceived into purchasing the wrong product? What I don't understand from your point is the limits of what a trademark should protect - it should only be used to prevent confusion over who manufactured a physical product in the core business of the entity holding the trademark?
  8. 650 has no drip
  9. The value of a brand is reputational, which is broader than the quality of the products it manufactures if it even manufactures products. A Patagonia branded Cyber Truck (better example) would damage the Patagonia brand (because of the confusion about association) with Patagonia’s core market.
  10. If there were Hummers for sale on the lot covered in Patagonia branding, are you guys saying that you would make no assumption that Patagonia, the clothing and lifestyle brand associated with the branding on the Hummer, had anything to do with the Hummer?
  11. A little “before” on the p bass. I should’ve had him keep the fretboard chud
  12. Alright, so I have to say - the hello kitty strat, it's a lot of fun and I'm really impressed with it as a Squier. I think it is supposed to be a "classic vibes" level Squier per what I've read on the internet - it is well intonated, it's really stable, the tuners are pretty nice, it has nice action, the finish is great. I'm impressed. It has a glossy neck which is not the choice I'd make generally but it's not difficult to move around on. My daughter typically stays out of my office, i need to put it away because she is not big enough for it yet but it'll be game over if she sees it - it should go hide in the closet for a few years. But, also - i think I kinda like having a stripped down strat like this. Maybe I should get a charvel or something if she does end up taking the kitty strat. Also though, she is definitely a lefty (like me) but I'm afraid she may be a full on guitar lefty (unlike me). Which will make sharing guitars harder. Also, one of the other guitars I got back from the luthier was my old dirnt p bass that i played forever and toured with. I'm trying to get my chops back up. I'm really bummed that the one guitar I've actually abused enough to have self-relic'd just had a shitty poly finish. I had considered replacing the body. Just cause it would be kinda fun to do, it would be like a new bass, maybe there's some metaphorical stuff going on there, and also I could keep the things I liked about that bass (neck, pickup, maybe the bridge) and upgrade the other stuff. Curious on thoughts, if this is cool like it is, or... I had played with the idea of getting a standard p bass body in nitro tahitian coral, something like this - maybe a little bit of relicing on it and no covers. although it would be the weird thing of the standard p body with the tele p neck, like this -
  13. more like jart
  14. hahahaha
  15. There’s a guitar for that - https://gettrumpguitars.com/products/donald-j-trump-gold-electric-guitar
  16. btw on the soloing question I applaud the study and the ambition. I can tell you that you can play for decades without working that hard to understand the neck 😶
  17. https://www.fender.com/en-US/squier-electric-guitars/stratocaster/fender-x-hello-kitty-white-stratocaster/0379102980.html
  18. I don't think that that's right - I'm recognizing that we limit these types of protections in a lot of instance, as not-a-lawyer I assume that that is because doing so is beneficial to society. And then I'm saying that misappropriation of a brand is potentially very harmful to a business and does not benefit society in any way at all that i can think of. In the absence of a benefit to society, I don't understand why we would allow purely parasitic actors to harm a business. I'm sure examples could be brought forth that would make sense, although giving free reign to junk vendors to build businesses selling royalty free team gear isn't it imo. this makes sense to me if you're selling shit with old defunct company logo stuff. With song publishing, if I commercially release a song then anyone is able to make and release their own commercial recording of that same song. They have to pay a royalty but I can't say no. Unless they're trying to take that song and incorporate it into a different song, which is when I can say no - this is why you've never heard Bruce Springsteen sampled by hip hop artists. I wonder if there is any of that kind of protection here - can I take the Penn State logo and... well I was going to say mash it up with NAMBLA but that probably has some kind of free speech satire protection. Could I make a shirt with Joe Paterno wearing a MAGA hat and have it emblazoned with "NITTANY LIONS" and sell that? It is an interesting thought exercise. If I hadn't been a practicing alcoholic with rockstar ambitions through college (or maybe if I hadn't woken up with alcohol withdrawals on the day of the LSAT) I probably would have tried to pursue law. I was always amazed and curious about the kinds of patents that my previous company would try and pursue parallel to my work as a product manager. We're trying to slap a commercially available sensor in an industrial process and hook it up to a PLC to do some control and then display data about the process through a webpage - I would have to sit with lawyers while they try and draft a patent that says that nobody else can use that kind of meter to measure that kind of thing in that kind of process - what the fuck, isn't that the whole point of the meter? There are only two companies that make them, we're allowed to try and say that nobody else can use them in this industry? I assume that that is normal, although I also learned to suspect that there were a lot of idiosyncrasies about that as a result of it mostly being run by scientists in business positions.
  19. I think this is part of my point (in addition to my assertion that it would cause consumer confusion in this world where many businesses/brands are pretty diversely commercialized) - allowing other people to take and improve some novel idea, or manufacture and sell more cheaply a product once it’s patent has expired - there’s at least some kind of benefit to that. I don’t see that being the case with allowing a business to co-opt another business’s brand. It’s not over the counter insulin or an improvement on the yeti cooler, it’s just slapping a yeti logo on something and hoping someone pays me for the yeti logo.
  20. Yeah that makes sense, although I would assume there’s some lawyerly discourse about the feeling of fairness and how that might be a smoke test for concepts that are more cromulent in defining law. With insulin, if people weren’t allowed to fairly profit from their r&d, it would disincentivize the r&d work that creates new drugs, harming the public good - the “fairness” should be reasonably protected. Why would I ever give a fuck about someone trying to draft off of the work someone else has put into creating a brand? It’s parasitism, fuck’em. Is there a case where it would not be?
  21. Not a lawyer, I don’t understand the reference, are you trying to tell me that brands aren’t people, with rights?
  22. I mean, maybe fairness isn’t the goal or what matters legally, but with someone inventing insulin you have fairness vs good. How much do they need to profit for inventing insulin, which is fair, before the good of allowing people to benefit should outweigh the fairness of them profiting on their invention. With something completely ephemeral like a brand, there is literally no good - it’s only fairness.
×
×
  • Create New...