|
|
|
|
|
|
by johnnyanmac
901 days ago
|
|
|
we're clearly splitting microscopic hairs if you're going so far to call a logo a market to have "monopoly" over. Even if governments didn't exist, people find all kinds of ways to differentiate "value" from brands. The entire hobbyist collectors market works this way. Governments just make it easier for people who can hire lawyers to assert this. Much easier to send out a C&D (which stops most infractions) than to generate some sort of "code of quality" or whatnot. |
|
|
Your claim that we're splitting hairs, microscopic or otherwise, is not strengthened by adding the word "clearly." If you don't like calling a trademarked logo a monopoly then I suggest you take it up with Wikipedia. Go ahead and edit at least these pages to correct their errors which tend to confuse trademarks with government-granted monopolies, something that is "clearly" a mistake according to you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government-granted_monopoly
>Even if governments didn't exist, people find all kinds of ways to differentiate "value" from brands. The entire hobbyist collectors market works this way.
Works what way? I have no idea what you're talking about.
>Governments just make it easier for people who can hire lawyers to assert this
Without governments there wouldn't even be lawyers.
>Much easier to send out a C&D (which stops most infractions)
Who's going to listen to a "C&D" if the government is unwilling to enforce it?
Again, there would not be big corporations without patents, copyrights, trademarks, and other forms of government-granted monopolies. If you think there somehow would be, I'd love to hear it.