Google Ruled a Trademark Infringer 537
Stephan writes "Google lost a trademark-infringement case in France.
News.com is reporting that a Paris District Court ruled
yesterday against Google in a
lawsuit filed by high-end fashion designer Louis Vuitton. The company
is suing Google for allowing its competitors to buy targeted ads on the
search engine's search results pages that use or are associated with the Vuitton
trademark. The court charged Google with trademark counterfeiting, unfair
competition and misleading advertising. Google was ordered to pay $257,430
(200,000 euros). Google is facing
similar lawsuits in different countries. In the United States, the company
recently
won a favorable ruling in a similar case brought by GEICO, the car insurance
company."
This is plain stupid. (Score:3, Insightful)
How the f$ck is this trandemark infringement?
Re:This is plain stupid. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not complicated.
Re:This is plain stupid. (Score:5, Insightful)
People doing searches for Louis V-whatever-the-frig-handbags are going to see ads for others - boo hoo.
Re:This is plain stupid. (Score:5, Informative)
If I have a Mazda to sell, I can mention the Mazda trademark in ads.
I think you're misleading people. It's more the case of (to use your example) Ford outbidding Mazda for the advertising space on their name. You search for Mazda and up comes Ford.
You might not care much about Ford vs. Mazda. Suppose it were Microsoft buying up all the ad-space for Red Hat, or Walmart buying up the ads for $SMALL_CHAIN.
If they want to bid on a type of item, say car, well that's one thing. But should they be able to out-bid you on your own name? One to think about more carefully.
Re:This is plain stupid. (Score:3, Insightful)
Have you used Google lately? It isn't the yellow-pages, it is a search engine, and searching for Louis-Vuitton [google.com] turns up guess who as the first hit.
The advertisements pruchased by competitors where clearly marked as such and on the sides.
Most People Can't The Difference (Score:2, Informative)
Trademark law is all about consumer confusion, if the results end up misleading/confusing the customer then there are problems.
Re:This is plain stupid. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not like there's a finite amount of ad space - advertising space grows as the budget for it grows.
Let's reverse your scenario - according to your way of thinking, Microsoft shouldn't be allowed to advertise in Linux Magazine.
It's advertising, and that's the nature of the beast. Or would you also restrict people from mentioning openoffice when people ask about Microsoft Office? Or Firefox when people search for Internet Exploder?
Re:This is plain stupid. (Score:3, Insightful)
I've already answered this below (both typing at the same time, I guess), but as this is directed at me, I'll just make two points.
There is a finite amount of ad space, you're wrong in this. The space is limited by the readers attention span. Probably the first few entries count, maybe the whole page if she's really doing comparison shopping. At most though, seven or eight little google ads are going to be looked at. The issue is whether someone else can use your own name for advertising against you.
Re:This is plain stupid. (Score:2)
Replying to my own post - bad etiquette probably - but I've thought about this more and so long as they don't skew the actual search results then nothing hideously wrong has been done by skewing the advertising (through the bidding system). But it's a bit harsh to know that just by typing in your name, someone is going to be deluged with invitations from your much bigger rivals.
You can see how good such a system is for Google however, as it means the big players are forced to bid competitively to secure
Re:This is plain stupid. (Score:3, Interesting)
And what if google should decide to block all searches (return no results) for groups who sue them in this manner? Would anyone have a problem with that?
Yes, certainly. That would amount to either threatening people / organizations in order to prevent them from taking you to court or punishing them for bringing your crimes to the judiciaries attention. In Europe, and I should think in the USA, the courts would take a dim view of this.
Whether it's witness intimidation or scaled up to corporate levels,
Re:This is plain stupid. (Score:3, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It will keep ad prices low. (Score:3, Interesting)
If only the registered trademark owner is allowed to bid on ad space related to that registered trademark, the bidding is not going to go very high
This is true, but does the harm to Google outweigh harm to other business of allowing the practice? I'm not saying it does or doesn't, just that this is the issue.
It's not quite as bad as it sounds for Google however. That Ad space is still valuable, and they still have a monopoly on selling it. If they decide to set the price at X thousand Euros then Maz
Re:This is plain stupid. (Score:4, Interesting)
No, this is more like opening a used car lot that sells Mazdas, and buying a spot under the Used Cars - Honda category, possibly without mentioning that you actually only sell Mazdas.
Re:This is plain stupid. (Score:4, Insightful)
Second - as another poster pointed out, it's perfectly legal in France to mention competitors in ads, but it hasn't been done until recently.
Third: the article is bullshit. Look at this quote:
How is restricting letting consumers find competitors a "protection to consumers"? It's a boot heel on their neck, by brand owners over-extending their "rights" to help stifle competition, that same competition which is what really benefits consumers.Fourth: Misleading advertising? The ads were clearly labeled as ads. And, unlike most media, where you have to "contact their media department", google's policies are a click away.
Re:This is plain stupid. (Score:2)
So yeah this sounds werid and hopefully they will appeal (and win) but every country has different laws. In Gemary I think you can't sell Door to Door (good-bye Avon), and in the US you can't show a women's breast(s) but men's are ok!!
Re:This is plain stupid. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This is plain stupid. (Score:5, Informative)
In the early 90's, we (a small startup company...now defunct) were going to bring a product to market for sale in a large computer store. At the time, to get our shrink-wrapped product into consumer's hands, the only place to sell it was in the large computer store chains - the internet was just starting to take off and most people didn't buy online.
The price at the time was about $250,000 year for a decent spot on the shelf - more if we wanted a highly visible end spot. Our business plan had us breaking even around year 5. You do the math. For a small, 2 man startup, that was some serious cash even before we factored in paying ourselves and making a living.
Perhaps, today, the prices have gone down due to competition from online stores. But, at the time, it was THE only way to go.
RD
Re:This is plain stupid. (Score:5, Interesting)
WalMart is notorious for this, but they only took an existing practice and expanded on it ...
Same with beer companies paying extra to have their brand placed more conveniently, or with more linear feet of exposure.
Tobacco companies pay your local store hundreds of dollars every month so that their package is right behind the cashier, and their competitors' is less visible.
Nobody has a right to be protected from competitors ads if they are not lies.
Re:This is plain stupid. (Score:3)
Re:This is plain stupid. (Score:2)
Re:This is plain stupid. (Score:2)
It's a trademark, not a copyright.
Re:This is plain stupid. (Score:5, Interesting)
Google could easily make it a policy that if you sue them, they blacklist you. They have NO obligation (other than to their shareholders) to index your site. It's their servers and their software, so they can do whatever they want with it. Actully, you could even make a strong argument that they have a fiduciary obligation to their shareholders to avoid lawsuits, so blacklisting the trademarks of hostile companies is just good business practice.
If it were me, I'd say something like: You're not happy that your trademarked words can result in your competitors' pages coming back in the search results or adsense? No problem, well make it so that someone entering your trademark as a search term brings up a message that says "The following words are protected trademarks and were not included in your search: $TRADEMARK". Hope you're happy now, asshat.
Re:This is plain stupid. (Score:3, Informative)
Besides, imagine the rioting in the streets if we took your post and replaced all instances of "Google" with "Microsoft."
Re:This is plain stupid. (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd prefer to see them take a different, better attitude towards this. What you're suggesting is ex
louis vuiton fashion, louis vuiton clothes, bags (Score:3, Informative)
e.g. louis vuiton demands a block on use of their trademark, Google offers "louis vuiton bags", "louis vuiton fashion", "louis vuiton perfume" which more closely defines what their trademark actually covers.
When I search louis vuiton, am I looking for the brand the person or shops that stock louis vuiton brands? In othe
Trademarks are divided into classes, but... (Score:3, Informative)
For a normal trademark, what you say is correct. Trademarks are divided into 45 different classes of goods and services. The system is called the "Nice Classification [wipo.int]", since the original version of it was agreed on at some conference in Nice, France. This system is nowadays used in almost all countries in the world.
Under normal circumstances, a trademark can coexist with an
Re:louis vuiton fashion, louis vuiton clothes, bag (Score:4, Informative)
Not at all, that seems to be a common misconception!
Apple (Jobs) owns the trademark in computers, but Apple (beatles) own the trademark in records. Even then there may be several owners of the trademark since different markets can have different owners.
The trademark protection is only for the market they are in and only for the product the mark covers.
I agree with the rest of your post though, Google still have to deliver the best result possible regardless of who they are pissed at.
Re:This is plain stupid. (Score:2)
Next you're going to say that KFC shouldn't be allowed to buy a lot next to a McDonalds.
Products should compete based on their quality, etc. The best way to judge them is side-by-side. If you are so afraid that your products can't compete in head-to-head comparisons, .... then it's time to either improve your product, or find a new product.
Next you'll say that those Pepsi Ads (taste test vs Coke) were unfair, and Coke should have sued. Baloney.
Re:This is plain stupid. (Score:2)
Breaking out of the analogy, what has happened is that some other merchants/companies/etc. have used Louis Vuitton's keywords to get hits. So, for
Re:This is plain stupid. (Score:2)
--Mike--
Re:This is plain stupid. (Score:2)
User: Where's the Pepsi?
Google:
User: Wait a minute: this is 7-up!
It's not just that it appeared next to a competitor, but much deeper.
Re:This is plain stupid. (Score:2)
Neither owns Google.
Both have the right to pay for advertising.
How do you think new brands break into the market? Under your analogy, Red Bull wouldn't even be allowed to set up a freezer next to Pepsi's or 7-ups.
Re:This is plain stupid. (Score:2)
Re:This is plain stupid. (Score:2)
What - did you think the phone company supplies Yellow Pages for free, or as part of your phone subscription?
Re:This is plain stupid. (Score:2)
Now, if there is a page in the sponsored link section that appears to be the Kerry position on the issue, but is Bush sponsered bogus page, then we have a problem.
I'm still not sure that it's Google's problem. It seems more like the advertising site is in violation.
The next step is when s
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This is plain stupid. (Score:2)
Google, last I looked, was a business, and their business was supported by selling ads.
If I search for a Honda, and Porsche feels that its worth some euros to offer Honda searchers a reminder that "Hey, Porsches here, dude!", that is between Google and Porsche.
Honda has zero involvement. Honda has no contract with either Google or the viewer. Honda is getting free advertising, to boot.
Hey, if I was the number 1 search result on Google, (I'm not, I'm only # 3, when you google for "t
Re:This is plain stupid. (Score:2)
According to you, I shouldn't be able to buy an ad that says "Hey, Nike user, why not buy my ethical runner instead?"
Or if I make one that's not quite as good, but 1/10th the price .. I can't buy an ad targeted to Nike customers saying "hey, for less than 1 pair of Nikes you can outfit the whole family".
Neither ad would be a lie. And the economy is most efficient when people have the most information.
It's
It sort of makes sense... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:It sort of makes sense... (Score:2)
Will google be sued too for META contents ??
Of course LV sued Google, after all they surely have loads more money than its counterfit competitor
Re:It sort of makes sense... (Score:2)
No. That's why when you see adverts comparing products they always say "a leading brand" or words to that effect. Even when it's pretty obvious who "the leading brand" must be, such as in Pepsi adverts for example, you still don't see or hear a mention of any competitor's trademarks.
Re:It sort of makes sense... (Score:2)
No it doesn't (Score:2)
Like Chrysler buying ads in a TV program that mentions Ford. Is that illegal?
(And by the way it has nothing to do with copyrights. This is about trademarks.)
you must not be from the US (Score:3, Interesting)
what I wonder is however, if someone shows a pre-recorded television program from the USA that includes comparative advertising that would be ill
Re:It sort of makes sense... (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, actually is it trademark infringement depending on how you look at it. I wouldn't say this case is clear cut. I'm sure you've seen many commercials on television that make direct comparisons. Recently, I've seen a commercial that compares Liquid Plumber and Drano. I can't remember who ran the commercial but the advertisers mention both products by name. And advertisements of this nature have gone on for decades.
Sometimes you might be
different countries, different laws (Score:2)
Re:It sort of makes sense... (Score:2)
Actually I think you're wrong: in France, comparing your product with another (like "Coke sux" in a Pepsi ad) is allowed but has NEVER been used (until recently when the new phone companies said the main phone operator was too f***ing expensive). I think it's more a cultural problem than a legal one: America has a long history of freedom of competition and capitalism, when European companies are scared of each other.
Re:It sort of makes sense... (Score:3, Interesting)
Freedom of competition has little to do with this.
It's the idea of searching for a tradem
Don't worry Google... (Score:5, Funny)
I dont see a diffenence (Score:5, Interesting)
international vs national (Score:5, Informative)
comparative advertising being one of them
Re:international vs national (Score:3, Informative)
Comparative advertising IS allowed in France (but most companies are too scared to use it). That's why I don't think it's relevant here.
why too scared? (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.chaillot.com/En/pages/p9.html
so, google crossed the line.
Re:I dont see a diffenence (Score:2, Informative)
The Difference (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I dont see a diffenence (Score:5, Informative)
Unfair Ruling (Score:4, Interesting)
Trademark counterfeiting? I really don't see this as being the case. Google is simply a tool by which various links are collected and set out in a presentable manner. Instead of shooting the messenger (Google), it seems to me that a more fair ruling would be to go after the counterfeitters themselves.
Unfair competition? I thought France had a relatively free market? And what exactly *is* "unfair competition" anyway? This aspect of the ruling seems as though it's set out to protect French business interests more than anything else.
Misleading advertising? Once again, it's the advertisers doing the misleading, not Google.
Re:Unfair Ruling (Score:4, Insightful)
Choice quote from Wikipedia entry "Economy of France": Government spending, at 53% of GDP in 2000, is the highest in the G-7.
Usually, that's indicative of a planned economy.
It's in France...... (Score:2)
Re:It's in France...... (Score:2)
They only hate the players because they are doing something they feel is wrong. They only hate the game because they beileve the game is wrong.
If it's unfair, don't sell your products or allow French companies to use your search engine.
There's no reason you are entitled to sell advertising when someone searches for another product.
Versus Billboards (Score:5, Insightful)
In short, I fail to see how Google selling Louis Vuitton adwords to LV's competitors is any different than State Farm putting up billboards across the street from Geico offices or Viagra buying an ad on the page after a Cialis article in Men's magazine. It's nothing more than good business sense. It isn't TM infringement.
Re:Versus Billboards (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, according to the article, it didn't pass muster in the US.
In short, I fail to see how Google selling Louis Vuitton adwords to LV's competitors is any different than State Farm putting up billboards across the street from Geico offices or Viagra buying an ad on the page after a Cialis article in Men's magazine. It's nothing more than good business sense. It isn't TM infringement.
Here, I have to disagree. Putting up billboards across the street is not the same thing. This is more like putting a phone tap on the line, and setting it up so that each time someone calls Geico, they get an intercept telling them how wonderful State Farm is.
The real question in my mind is whether, if this ruling holds up pretty broadly, the Google adwords (tm) model will suffer. How many ads are for competitors, versus how many just for a generic term like "car insurance"?
In the end, if I were Geico or Louis Vuitton, I think I'd be pretty upset too.
Re:Versus Billboards (Score:4, Insightful)
Importantly, nothing gets intercepted, because the main search results still go through to Geico. What's added is a small annotation saying that if you're interested in Geico, you might want to check out State Farm instead.
If rulings like this stand, I think the next rung of lawsuits against search engines happens when Geico isn't the first search hit for "Geico" or if "State Farm" shows up second on the search results page. [tongue-in-cheek]Brand Confusion, I tell you![/tongue-in-cheek] At least in the current case, "State Farm" is marked as an advertisement and displayed *distinctly* from the main results.
What else would rulings like this ban? Miller ads that say - "half the carbs of Bud light" Or "Aleve lasts twice as long as Tylenol"? Comparitive advertisement is a cornerstone of the US marketplace. I understand that it is much less so (if not altogether verboten) in Europe.
In any case, whatever you want to call this, it ain't TM infringement.
Re:Versus Billboards (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Versus Billboards (Score:3, Insightful)
It's probably more like an advert on a train timed to show off State Farm ads when the train is pulling up to the Geico stops. The ads can be ignored.
I think the bigger factor here is that Google was bringing to France foreign competition to French
Stupid! (Score:5, Insightful)
In the case of Trademark, it's purpose is not to protect companies that take out trademarks, but to protect _consumers_. The point with trademark is that if I want a Coca-Cola, or a Louis-Vuitonn bag, I can be sure that what I buy is actually such a product, and not a cheap knock-off. Without trademark laws, it would be next to impossible to know what you are buying. That this leads to brands with incredible value is entirely incidental, and possibly not entirely positive.
So, in this context, the ruling could not be more stupid. How does it, in any way, hurt the consumer that competitors can advertise under queries for Louis-Vuitonn? As long as the ads are clearly marked as being adds for somebody else (as they are on Google), this will only increase competition and give the consumer more choice.
One can understand why Louis-Vuitton might not like that, but the role of the courts ought not be to do their bidding!
Re:Stupid! (Score:2)
Bullshit. Those ads are selling knock-off crap.
Re:Stupid! (Score:2)
I understand why Louis-Vuitton would be unhappy with Google ads for competitors. They want to control their advertising environm
Re:Stupid! (Score:3, Insightful)
Now I don't entirely understand this.. (Score:4, Interesting)
It is not the fault of the technology, but users that are just plain confused. This ruling will look incredibly dumb in a generation or two when people are generally more saavy.
not search engines (Score:3, Informative)
it's the for profit advertising that violates french law.
In france, where they have an office.
What do you expect (Score:2)
just remove them (Score:4, Interesting)
lets see who's laughing (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:lets see who's laughing (Score:2)
Good. Do that. That's Google's choice.
Is this hard to understand?
If you don't like the laws in a country, it's your choice to do something about it or not. Follow the laws, don't and be sued, or get out of the game.
They are NOT ENTITLED TO ANYTHING.
Those who bought the ads should be liable (Score:2)
Google is just the medium by which the ads are distributed. If an ad has false information or infringes a trademark, hold the people who created and paid for the ad responsible, not the messenger who delivered the ad.
Pay 'em and Cut 'em Off (Score:2, Insightful)
What the French government doesn't quite seem to understand is that, in the information age, France is just another brand. And, a minor legacy historical empire one at that. Notwithstanding the fact that the government of France is the king of
Re:Pay 'em and Cut 'em Off (Score:2)
they want to do business in
hell, google does business in PRC - making all kinds of compromises in order to be able to operate there.
The real reason this is stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
LV is trying to claim that Google, a company which is not beholden to them, has somehow diluted their trademark by associating other companies with it. However, if google didn't index pages linking to them, or their pages, then they wouldn't come up at all. When X is the amount of business driven to LV by google, and Y is the percentage of that business lost by people buying competing (and sometimes knockoff) products, Losing Y percent of X still leaves you with infinitely more profit from that source than you paid for.
In other words, google is a free resource and they have no right to bitch about what ads are shown along google searches for their trademark.
The counterargument is probably that because google is ubiquitous in search, they have an unfair position in the market from which to do things like this. However, they are anything but a monopoly, so that argument really doesn't wash - especially since it's not illegal to sell LV and a competing product in the same store (unless the competing product is illegal anyway) so it makes no sense to make it illegal to mention them together on the same web page. But then, most legal systems since Hammurabi are not based on what makes sense for the most people.
Revenge of the French (Score:2, Funny)
I'm sure France is just getting back at Google for this: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/victories.ht
You can be sued for anything and nothing (Score:3, Interesting)
This is about Google selling advertisement (search results?) showing a competitor when a user searched for a particular brand.
I don't know how any of that fits into any given legal ssytem but I do think that it's inappropriate in the sense that the user is probably not interested in seeing it. If I am searching for something about Volvo... parts or recall history or whatever, I sure as hell don't want my information contaminated with unrelated information from Ford or Chevrolet. So in that sense, I disagree with the practice.
Should Google be able to sell advertisement? YES. Should they be able to sell targeted advertisement? YES. Should they be able to sell targetted advertisement triggered by a competitor's trademark? No... they shouldn't do it... unless specific cases necessitate it. I'm from the South (Texas, USA -- that's kinda south) and out here, we ask for a "coke" when we want a soda and a "kleenex" when we want a tissue. The trademark became the item. I don't know if that's the case with this particular trademark issue, but I think Google should be responsible enough not to do what they are accused of having done. If I am Pepsi, I shouldn't be able to buy targetted advertising against "coke" or "coca-cola" as a keyword.
Now that said -- is the purchaser of said advertisement being held accountable for this? Google is a company with global availability and they cannot help when local laws are affected or when local companies feel offended. I think it would be more appropriate that authorities rule that Google remove such material but that the purchaser be held responsible -- not Google.
I'm recalling other areas where France has tried to rule against global companies such as eBay for allowing the sale of items that the French government has banned. So to France I say, "Dude! You're not the only people on the planet and certainly not the most important or significant. Get over yourself." (To that, I would expect an echo about the U.S.
Extremely misleading translation. (Score:5, Informative)
The parent article is awfully misleading. Our legal systems differ on trademarks enforcement, and google fell in a trap it should have avoided by simply asking a competent local lawyer. Who's concerned ? google.FR ; why ? so-called anti-americanism ? Bullshit. We've got cases of the very same nature dating back to the 19th century between french firms. Google pobably thought they could come down there and do business as they see fit, but we're not a 3rd world country, and you can't bribe judges to twist the law. It has nothing to see with governement either.
So what's it all about ? Unfair competition. It has been ruled for over a 100 years that it is a civil wrong for a company to use the efforts made by another firm to promote its trademarks. Little example : A has a trademark 'a' ; B pays 'wall mart' for, whenever a consummer wants 'a' product, to give him a discount on 'b' product, or advertize 'b'. Why ? because B is in fact capitalizing on the money A spent to have 'a' trademark known to the public, without paying back A for this effort, thus 'stealing' it from A. 'wall mart' is wrongfully getting a profit out of it either.
The case of YP is different, because when one checks the YP, it looks for a type of good or service, and the YP comprehensively lists all the places you can find one, in alphabetical order, and no discrimination ; you can't check the YP for a trademark.
You may have a different opinion in the USoA, but know what ? We don't care.
Change your sunglasses (Score:5, Informative)
A good example of how France handled the case can be seen in how many cars are marketed in Europe. In the US, every vehicle is compared to the competition (ex: The Ford F250 has more towing power than a Chevy pickup, has more legroom than a Dodge pickup, and has better rims than the Toyota Tundra). This is not allowed in Europe. They can extoll the virtues of their own vehicles without dragging in other manufacturers products. To an informed consumer, both methods are silly, since they're all based on lies, damn lies and statistics.
Therefore, one is not allowed to use someone else's trademark in advertising in most European countries. This seems to be the spot where Google got in trouble. While it can be argued that Google was only the messenger, they actually made money from selling the key adwords that were trademarked. I think this is where they got hit, since they made a profit from the dealing. If they didn't charge for keywords, they probably would have avoided the fine. Perhaps if they change their adwords to kill trademarked names and separate the first and last names as different words, instead of the phrase "Louis V..." use "Louis" "Vuitton" "handbag", they could get away with it, but with this on the books I'd be extra cautious. As someone else pointed out, hire a lawyer and get legal in most of Europe - pay less than the 250K they were fined. Good insurance, IMHO.
Typical: Attacking the biggest, not the guiltiest (Score:3, Insightful)
If I take out a classified Ad in the newspaper that makes fradulent claims, then *I* am the one responsible for the fraud, not the newspaper. This should be the same way.
But, of course, that's not the way the bullshit courts in the world work. Instead people attack the richest party that was even slightly involved, because that's where the big payout is, instead of attacking the guiltiest party.
or CNN:Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Rumsfeld and Hussein (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Solution: (Score:2)
Yes, 'cause we all know that the family memebers of Ted Bundy should be ostracized forever because of his actions. Right?
Re:Are you serious?!? (Score:2)
Both of those reasons were used as rationales for going to war against Iraq this time, so I'm not sure what the whole, "Saddam had to screw up first" is in reference to. The war with Kuwait? Saddam invaded another soveirgn country, Iran, and the US didn't care. So what made that Rummy so different from today's Rummy?
Oh, I'm sorry,
You mean, (Score:3, Funny)
Did you sleep through the news of the girls in Colorado who were fined for giving cookies to their neighbor? Idiotic judgements are passed by every court in the world. Your jingoism is misplaced.
Re:You mean, (Score:2)
What I was trying to say though, France is *EXTREMELY* nationalistic -- even more so than the US, and I wouldn't expect them to rule in the US's favor, ever.
About 100 years ago france had a minister of education who was a sociologist, who had some strange theories -- namely that religion was basically worship of your own culture. So he reasoned -- why not actually worship your own culture and skip the church part? And being in the p
Re:Screw France (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course I don't pretend I can explain this court order, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the USA, GWB, the Irak war, the Nazis or an international Jewish/Freemasonry conspiracy, just some trademark issues.
Re:Screw France (Score:4, Insightful)
That's rather extreme. Just because the French state has different political views and opinions to you, doesnt mean they are any less valid. We don't know enough about the case to judge whether or not their was any bias, so jumping to these sort of conclusions is not particularly helpful.
yeah, one problem (Score:2)
54-56 avenue Hoche
75008 Paris
phone: +33-1-56-60-56-60
fax: +33-1-53-01-08-15
they'd have to pull outta town....
Re:You know what I call this... (Score:2)
This is up to debate. There are differing opinions. Hell, I don't know what the answer is. If this ir right, or if this is wrong.
I don't really know.
But it's not Frivolous.
Re:Sillyness (Score:3, Interesting)
Absolutely not. I think it's utterly ridiculous to think these suits are utterly ridiculous, so there's a start.
I mean has anyone seen any pepsi/coke ads lately ? They feature their competitors unabashedly.
They do not feature their competitors unabashedly. They insult their competitors to coerce people into buying their product. There's no truth, just BUY US, NOT THEM, THEY SUCK.
It's wrong.
"No one should hear about the competitor's
Shunning. (Score:3, Insightful)
It would be similar to a village turning their collective backs on a miscreant in their midst as if he/she never existed. They've been shunned. Imagine, any reference whether it be a personal page, or a blog, or
Re:Google skips Town (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft buys "Linux": An interesting parallel (Score:3, Insightful)
why not?
As long as it's an ad.
On a poractical note, if someone is looking into Linux, then they know the MS viewpoint already.
This will be true with just about any product.
It is perfectly reasonably for me to put an ad for my product on a billboard near a competitor.
Re:Microsoft buys "Linux": An interesting parallel (Score:3, Informative)