[xmprt]

Trademarks are about customer protection more than protecting the company. If another company starts selling "Android" phones that have a completely different OS, that ruins the Android brand but also makes it difficult for customers to trust that the product they're buying is legitimate unless the Android trademark is defended.

[jackcviers3]

Using this the next time an objectivist capitalist starts getting angry about how government regulations are all worthless.

[maxlybbert]

The concept of trademarks dates back to master craftsmen putting identifying marks on their work to build up a reputation. Trademark law gives that practice some legal enforcement.

I’m sure you can find some anarchist who would oppose any law, but I’m much more familiar with people who want a small government and wouldn’t mind that government enforcing trademark laws. They also generally support truth in advertising laws or labeling laws (“you should be able to sell anything you want, as long as you tell people what’s in it”), or product liability laws. Those laws make for a better functioning marketplace.

[jackcviers3]

Yes - but a Randian market isn't under the enforcement of any government.

[eecc]

They might argue it’s up to the incumbent to protect its brand, crushing the competition and holding the market under a tight stranglehold. Like the Romans: Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.

Oh, wait... ;)

[unishark]

Trademark infringement can be viewed as fraud and a criminal matter with an actual victim (the person scammed into buying the fake Android phone).

Patents are a different story, since the idea itself is the value, and different people can come up with the same idea independently.

[nwsm]

They will tell you "let the market sort it out"

[epr]

Why? trademarks are not incompatible with capitalism