Absolutely. Today. But what I was getting at is if we were to hypothetically do away with IP, what he was claiming was a side effect doesn't seem to be one to me. It seems that if someone pretended to be selling a Rolex, and it was accepted that Rolexes were good, high quality watches produced by the Rolex company, they would be committing fraud.
Who gets to decide what any word means? Why is it special that it's a proper noun? If someone were going around claiming to be jeffool from HN, that'd be a clear case of fraud too, no?
That might have been why it was created, but it's not how it's primarily used today, nor do I think it does that good a job combating "customer confusion". (Remember, even without Ubuntu calling their OS "Windows", Dell customers still sent back Ubuntu laptops complaining they thought they were getting Windows.) Just like copyrights and patents were created to encourage innovators to innovate and share with society--the goal was improving society--that original purpose is lost in the primary uses of IP laws today.
Who gets to decide what any word means? Why is it special that it's a proper noun? If someone were going around claiming to be jeffool from HN, that'd be a clear case of fraud too, no?