The etoy Strikes Back 116
Is there confusion between the two names? eToys seems to think so, since it got etoy's website taken down in December 1999 for exactly that reason. The site was put back up later, and eToys' legal action halted, mostly because etoy was using its name, and had its website, long before eToys even existed.
And I can especially see why etoy is worried, since eToys has also filed a trademark application on "ETOYS" in the context of providing "interactive and arcade games via a global computer network." Which is, well, pretty darn close to what the artistic group has been doing for the last five years.
So if there's confusion, it really seems like eToys brought this on itself. When it set up in the first place, simply checking for the singular version of its corporate name would seem to me like a gimme. Failure to do so would seem like a clear-cut case of infringement.
Things are a little more confusing than that, though. The trademark that eToys bought was actually registered by an unrelated company in 1990 ("Etna Toys") -- the law starts to give me a headache at this point. Only a lawyer could love the difference between a trademark application and an Intent To Use declaration, I think. The resolution of this one may come down to whether it's appropriate to purchase a trademark of another company without actually purchasing the company itself, or any of its equipment, inventory, etc. In other words, are words themselves, words given legal protection by our government, subject to being bought and sold on the open market?
An interesting question. Not the same question as whether etoy.com and etoys.com should be able to coexist on the same internet despite unreconciliable philosophical differences, but ... an interesting question.
We'll keep you posted on how this one turns out. It's essentially the inverse of the fiasco in late 1999, with the lawsuit (apparently) pointed in the correct chronological order this time. Whether eToys will even exist as a company by the time this suit is resolved is, unfortunately, an open question.
oh shut the fuck up you whiny blowhard (Score:1)
etoy is wisely looking ahead ... (Score:1)
What should be done (Score:2)
Let's get 'em! (Score:2)
Note that etoy firmly insists they are a real for-profit corporation, so they clearly don't deserve much sympathy. Their Flash-ridden site doesn't count as much of a service to the Slashdot community. On the other hand, eToys engineers contribute to open source projects like mod_perl and Template Toolkit that directly benefit Slashdot development. In fact, eToys is one of the biggest customers of VA Linux, which pays the bills at Slashdot.
Okay, I was just kidding about DoS'ing them. No one deserves that. But do think about the fact that there are real people - possibly just like you - at both corporations before you jump to conclusions.
This won't be a big issue soon (Score:1)
Re:Oh man... (Score:2)
So, how's this different? (Score:1)
Group B sues A. Wants A to give up rights to name. Worried about confusion.
Isn't this what happened last time?
About all they did was switch names on the original lawsuit and sides in the court room.
-----------------------------
1,2,3,4 Moderation has to Go!
Comment removed (Score:4)
Go ahead & mod me down, but mod the other up! (Score:2)
No no, now ask any lawyer, & it/he/she will tell you, ``possession is 9 points of the law."
eToys tried to take possession away from etoy, & failed.
eToys now has little or no money. They're facing creditors. Time for etoy to hire a lawyer & win the war.
After all, etoy still has possession.
Geoff
Re:And I'll tell you for why... (Score:2)
But you will be cutting the namespace by half. That's not good. We're dealing with a limited and shared resource here.
cheers,
sklein
Re:Oh man... (Score:3)
Study carefully the authoritative stride of the lawyer as he approaches the edifice of Justice. Note with admiration the loving attention lavished upon each brief. Imagine the chagrin of the assembled when the plaintiff reveals that under the robe, the judge is wearing no pants.
Seems only fair (Score:1)
E-Toys Dot Com Co. was basicly worryed about the diffrence between E-Toys Dot Com Co and etoy projects and arts.
etoy projects and arts however was in busness first and has been in the Internet, games, etc feald longer than E-Toys Dot Com Co was...
Also the trademark E-Toys Dot Com Co was not in the area etoy projects and arts was.
E??? toys co did not approch the market etoy projects and artists did... They were not a "DotCom" or "DotOrg" or "Dot" anything...
However E-Toys Dot Com Co is at least expressing intrest in breaking into the arena where etoy projects and artists lives...
Given this would ferther irritate the situation it is up to etoy projects and artists to take action and force E-Toys Dot Com Co to get a new name and leave them alone.
On this same issue.. E-Toys Dot Com Co is losing money like many Dot Coms and may die.. however as has been proven.. If it's not dead yet you can often keep it alive with expensive medication.. in this case.. venture capital...
And rember kiddies.. there is a sucker born every min...
Re:Similar Domains (Score:1)
When you go and get a busness name they cross check automaticly for similer names. It's not that hard to do... Domain names don't do it becouse it shouldn't be nessisary...
If you want to use your domain name as a busness mark you should do the cross checking yourself (as etoys Dot Com co clearly didn't do) and conferm that the name isn't allready in use.
It's pricy but if you want to do busness this way you need to grab up the smiler domains etc..
The obveous plural and non plural varents should have been checked early on and reged..
Anyway.. if you grab a domain after the fact then yeah you place your bumm in the crosshairs of some idiot...
Just a bit of trivia... anyone rember the mtv.com situation?
basicly a Video DJ at MTV regged the domain.. when he left mtv they wanted him to give up the domain.
See the problem? It became known as his machine.. not MTVs system.. they weren't even on the Internet yet...
Instead of trying to install a real name network and use it.. retrofitting the domain system is a problem...
I like how Netscape preforms a search... enter "mtv" and it searches for mtv.. Thats how it should be...
Re:So, how's this different? (Score:1)
A is trying to ferther confuse by entering into the same area B is known for...
Kinda (Score:1)
I didn't find this one bit ammusing when I got such e-mail... (Yes I supported them then and I support them now.. just not in spamming or DoS attacks)
So basicly Etoy picked it's help from amoung Slashdot posters.. I can only hope the majority of Slashdotters did not take part...
They hurt etoys.. yes.. but there are a lot of Slashdotters with a lot of band with...
As the Slashdot effect has proven it only takes a precentage of Slashdotters to do the damage by accadent.. it should take a smaller precentile to do it intentionally...
I don't know what Slashdotters at larg did.. I know I didn't take part and I know enough did to cripple E-toys dot com...
In retrospect I was more annoyed about the spam than I was the DoS attack... The victom of the DoS was E-Toys... Ohhhh
Re:Oh man... (Score:2)
Also of interest to the Slashdot crowd: Mindstorms are cheap [etoys.com]. It feels sort of vulture-like, but $100 for a Robotics Invention System is pretty good. If you're ordering, balance against the possibility of them going bankrupt before they ship it.
Sure, why not (Score:2)
Sure, why not? An asset is an asset is an asset.
But the toy store doesn't think so! (Score:2)
Re:Sure, why not (Score:2)
There was a decision that copyright should be given legal protection. Before then, you couldn't own a copyright, and it was not an asset.
There are many kinds of assets that are only assets because the legal system has decided they should be.
Re:And I'll tell you for why... (Score:2)
--
Fighting the future (Score:2)
But consider this: when eToys goes bankrupt, its assets will be put up for sale. Like most dotcoms, the main asset of this company is likely their domain name. If another company buys the domain, there is always the chance that with fresh money and fresh lawyers, they once again pursue the attack on etoy.
By counter attacking now, etoy is in a good position to protect themselves once and for all. First of all, with eToys on the financial ropes, they will have less money to throw at lawyers to defend themselves. Secondly, and most importantly, if etoy wins, they will prevent many potential future headaches for themselves. Even if eToys goes down before the suit is settled, the legal cloud hovering over the etoys.com domain "property" will make it much less attractive to prospective buyers.
Trickster Coyote
Ignore that man behind the curtain.
eToys == useful bastards, eToy == useless bastards (Score:2)
On the other hand, eToy sends me a crapload of spam. That's all they do as far as I know. I say F&*% ETOY! They get no sympathy from me.
P.S. I agree that eToys shouldn't be trying to get the etoy domain name, but that's been said here about a zillion times over the past however many months or years so there's no real reason to say it again.
Re:two wrongs... (Score:1)
--
You think being a MIB is all voodoo mind control? You should see the paperwork!
Re:hahaha (Score:1)
--
You think being a MIB is all voodoo mind control? You should see the paperwork!
Re:oh shut the fuck up you whiny blowhard (Score:1)
--
You think being a MIB is all voodoo mind control? You should see the paperwork!
Re:What a mess of a Web site (Score:1)
----
Re:Stop already (Score:1)
This company is a classic example of a
Re:two wrongs... (Score:1)
E-toys brought this on themselves. They deserve everything they get.
Re:two wrongs... (Score:1)
Re:two wrongs... (Score:1)
So what if the parents got angry all they had to tell them was that they were going to the wrong place.
Re:two wrongs... (Score:1)
It's not slander if it's true. If you do crappy sleazy things expect to get yelled at and critizied (at a minimum). Sorry bub that's life. As a corporation you get a ton of benefits and a relatively free ride from the legal and political system. A bunch of people yelling at you because you chose to act stupid is not mush of a burden. As for the Dos attacks well sorry I may not like them but you are not the only victims and there is very little anybody can do (ask zdnet and microsoft).
Re:Oh man... (Score:2)
Re:two wrongs... (Score:1)
Re:Fighting back is the only way!!!! (Score:2)
Domain names vs Trademarks (Score:2)
Kintanon
Re:Stop already (Score:2)
Their failure is enough punishment.
No it's not. It's not punishment at all, it's the direct result of their idiotic business plan. They have not yet been punished for going after an independant website which posed no threat to them, was not in their field (so trademark dilution wouldn't apply), on an illegitimate trademark claim anyway, and blatently for only the Christmas season (both to get publicity, and try to shut down misdirection over the holidays, their biggest sales season in theory). They probably never will be punished. So pardon me if I don't think they've caught enough crap. Corporate officers and shareholders should be held liable for this sort of thing. When they cause financial harm to innocent people, they should be punished.
--
Re:And I'll tell you for why... (Score:2)
You're right. I believe that the proper term for this kind of trickery is domain name hijacking. That is, they took a name which rightfully belongs to and is in use by someone else and had the DNS records changed to point to a different site. If you ask me this is an even lower form sleaze than cyber-squatting. At least with the cyber-squatters you can just buy them off.
_____________
Re:two wrongs... (Score:1)
Re:two wrongs... (Score:1)
B. This isn't about 0ld 5k3wl vs. Big Evil Corporation, as much as that false dichotomy makes the world easier for you to understand.
C. There's still the issue of domain. As many many people pointed out when the suit went the other way around, eToys.com would never get confused with etoy.com
D. Moral equality doesn't fucking matter under the law. The law matters under the law, because everyone has their own code of morality, but there's only one code of law.
Re:two wrongs... (Score:1)
two wrongs... (Score:4)
Re:two wrongs... (Score:2)
If its granted, it'll only be a matter of time before whoever buys the TM from eToys during the bankruptcy goes after them again. I'd say this is a 'Spank em before they spank you'
`Sides, when you have been wronged and the law entitles you to revenge, not damages, you use it.
Re:Stop already (Score:1)
How about if they just doe quietly and no one gets sued.
Mwahaha (Score:1)
Maybe other companies who think like EToys should take a lesson from this. The little guy may not be able to fight you now, but whats gonna happen when you've just blown 84 mil and are about to go belly up
I give EToy two thumbs up for returning the favor. After all, one good screw deserves another.
Patience (Score:1)
Re:Patience (Score:1)
Heh, yeah, there's likely to be plenty of overlap between the etoy and EToys customers. They're practically the same demographic!
Re:And I'll tell you for why... (Score:2)
Re:two wrongs... (Score:4)
Re:hahaha (Score:1)
hahaha (Score:2)
I don't agree here (Score:1)
What I'd like much more is if some lawyer would be hold responsible for the "under penalty of perjury" part of the DMCA for making false allegations about copyrighted material ¥like the DeCSS vs© DeCSS case© That would be really nice and would also make some guys think twice before sending bulk-'cease and desist' letters to ISPs©
--------------------------------------
Re:It aint the corporation, it's the people (Score:1)
---------------------
Re:two wrongs... (Score:2)
Re:two wrongs... (Score:2)
But it's not a "ridiculous lawsuit" - it's envelope-pushing performance art!
Re:Let's get 'em! (Score:1)
I'll bet etoy is really proud to have your support.
Re:two wrongs... (Score:1)
You are so wrong. Etoy was well aware of the traffic they were receiving from typos and confusion, and took advantage of it with pictures of toys on their front page, as well as their whole "IPO" thing. eToys did nothing to them until they received angry letters from parents whose children had gone to the etoy site and found some S&M pictures there.
You assume that there was some kind of evil motive for eToys, but it's just not the case.
Re:two wrongs... (Score:1)
Which part is the sleazy part? The support of Toys for Tots? The contributions to open source projects like mod_perl? (You know, the thing that runs this site...)
eToys would never have bothered to do anything with etoy if they hadn't received angry letters from parents complaining about the etoy site. Maybe you should check your assumptions.
Re:Stop already (Score:1)
Where do you get these crackpot theories from? You sound like a conspiracy junkie. eToys had a very simple reason for going after etoy: they were getting angry complaints from parents whose children were getting onto etoy.com by mistake and found some S&M pictures there. Since etoy wasn't willing to do anything to help the situation (the asked for more money than eToys was willing to pay them), they took it to court. You may not agree with that move, but the evil motives you're making up are ridiculous.
Re:hahaha (Score:1)
It sure is. And when VA Linux can't afford to pay the bills for Slashdot anymore because they lost one of their biggest clients (eToys), you can be proud of the fact that you helped make it happen.
Re:Yes but... (Score:1)
It doesn't really help much to put one of VA Linux's biggest clients (eToys) out of business. For all we know, they might owe VA Linux (and thus Slashdot) some money right now.
Re:What a mess of a Web site (Score:1)
Re:eToys == useful bastards, eToy == useless basta (Score:1)
Re:two wrongs... (Score:1)
Apparently etoy thinks it's a good idea, since they're doing it.
You have any idea of how much anguish was visited on people that were sued not to mention how much it cost them?
Yes, I do. It cost them nothing, since eToys paid all of their legal bills. Do you have any idea how much it hurts to see a community that you are part of (Slashdot/Linux/Open Source) shouting outrageous slander against you and mounting hundreds of DoS attacks against you?
Re:Oh man... (Score:1)
Darn Slashdot effect.
Re:Oh man... (Score:1)
Re:Another Notable Lawsuit... (Score:1)
Re:Kick em while they're down (Score:1)
read a little deeper. (Score:2)
You missed a very important point. Even though Mattel paid me a judgment, Mattel kept going with their baseless libel claim.
Mattel tried to use a baseless libel claim and threat of continued litigation to try to shut me up.
I asked them to drop their libel claim and their response was that "we will continue to litigate."
How would you suggest that large corporations be prevented from this type of abuse? In the case of Mattel they have over 134 cases listed in one of the 94 federal courts.
BTW. The courts , generally, really only let us punish by taking money; no public flogging.
Fighting back is the only way!!!! (Score:3)
What needs to be done, is to fight back and fight back hard. A couple of large judgments against these bullies discourage other potential bullies.
That is why I am fighting against Mattel -- to stop them from doing this to others!
trademarks (Score:1)
A trademark comes out of the medieval guild system, the 'mark' of a master craftsman. Basically a guarantee of quality.
Guilds were of course utterly destroyed by the industrial revolution which promised all the same stuff cheaper despite their best attempts to get governments to outlaw the anti-competitive 'pirate' factorys. (satire added)
A trademark is by definition therefore not just any mark, but a unique mark. i.e. typing 1$ on a piece of paper does not a dollar make. Think unique design like a branding iron ('brand name recognition.')
What is a a url? A word name that out in the big internet phone book equates to number longer than my home phone (generally).
If a company prevents me from using their brand name in casual conversation, product review, etc, it is a simple conflict between my freedom of speach and the 'brand' monopoly. Reasonably i can't yell fire in a crowded theatre, but outside of safty concerns all else is fair game. Likewise the point of a brand is both to protect a craftsmans interests, and for everyone else, to provide a unique and authoritative way to refer to a specific product.
The main simularity to a brand is that the names are still 'unique'... but that fails... to properly indicate a brand in a text i include 'TM.' Url's have no ability to indicate that a given reference is to the trademark holder's website, a spoof site, etc. It is not possible to include the particular look of a trademark. Even the TM for the frowny face,' :-( ' isn't for the 3 characters, is for a logo, an image that looks like that. Url are completely unable to display the graphical logo, that's on the homepage. A Url cannot display the flair that is the coca-cola tm, so why should it be treated as a mark? In text you include the TM, until Coca-Cola.com is Coca-ColaTM.com or better Coca-Coal.TM why would anyone assume this is the 'brands' homepage (I submit, only because we've done so before).
The short and simple of my point is that there is not enough meat in a url to realistically assume that any url on the anoymous internet is a 'brand', and trademarks should not be given any special weight until there is a dotTM extension which is authoritative to a TM database.
Seems reasonable to me
Re:And I'll tell you for why... (Score:1)
Care about freedom?
Re:But the toy store doesn't think so! (Score:1)
But even so, they didn't have it as a mark for avante garde art projects, and so they would have to prove a conflict to sue etoy.
However, the reverse is true. Etoy would have to prove the same conflict. With etoys having an older mark, etoy would have to show that etoys expanded their business and started confusing the public about etoy. I'm not sure they did this, frankly, other than by suing. I doubt a reasonable person would confuse the two.
Of course if etoys is a generic term for toys, then etoys can't sue anybody over using it for toys, and nobody can sue them over using it for toys.
A generic term can be a TM in another field. Apple is a generic term in the fruit business, but a trademark in the computer business. Apple computer can't sue any apple growers for using the term in the fruit business, nobody can.
Trademarks do have domains (Score:2)
Of course it has to be legitimate confusion. For example, if the public would look and say "Oh, no, this is an art group they don't sell toys" then there is no confusion because they are in different fields. Thus Apple Computer and Apple Auto Glass can and do co-exist. However, if Apple Computer were to try to repair windshields or Apple Auto Glass sell computers, it could be a problem, as it was when Apple Records raised questions about Apple Computers which could be used as musical instruments.
So even though eToys, in purchasing the Etna etoys mark, would have prior claim if the mark had not been invalidated for being generic, it wouldn't matter as the marks are different.
But etoys made a mistake when they sued etoy, for they stated that they felt there was confusion. Now etoy doesn't have to prove confusion nearly so much.
But if etoys is a generic term it means anybody can use it, so they may not have much luck.
etoys harasment (Score:1)
Received: from hotmail.com (law2-f119.HOTMAIL.com [216.32.181.119]) by mailer.merz-akademie.de with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.1960.3)id W42SCM2G; Mon, 20 Dec 1999 18:27:09 +0100
Received: (qmail 25683 invoked by uid 0); 20 Dec 1999 17:39:31 -0000
Received: from 206.132.100.130 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP;Mon, 20 Dec 1999 09:39:31 PST
Message-ID:
X-Originating-IP: [206.132.100.130]
From: "Ken Hurley"
To: alvar.freude@merz-akademie.de
Subject: hello there..
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 12:39:31 EST
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Hello my little friend..
Build any new scripts lately? I suggest for you to get the hell out of dodge before the neighbors find out. Mrs Robinson and Mr Atlers are not nice people.
Have a great holiday..
B1g_daddE
------------
Scary huh?
Shayne
A 1st admendment violation? ... I would think so . (Score:1)
They break all the laws so they can get what they want, and cry when they don't
but hey, what else does a company do? I don't know about you guys, but I'm really getting sick and tired of the little guys getting screwed by these brain dead companies
I really hope these guys win, not because the entire idea of ecommerce is sickening ... but because it would set a clear example, of when a company should and shouldn't push it
one last thing
By etoys not allowing some else to use words SIMILAR to etoys, a violation of the 1st admendment?
oh wait ... thanks to the whole DeCSS ... we don't have that any more right?
I wonder way (Score:1)
Another Notable Lawsuit... (Score:1)
It seems to me this suit acts as precedent for the etoys suit. Their domains are entirely different (art and toys; computers and records) and they're based in different countries. Different continents, even!
However... In the day of the Internet, continents just don't matter the same way. I'd be confused by eToys or etoys. I think the first to the name gets it. If that was the European company.. Than eToys was just *stupid* in not researching that fact.
Who knows what will happen. Does it really matter for eToys? They're not even in the black..
THESE LAWSUITS INSULT AND DEMEAN US ALL (Score:2)
For example, if I said, "Go to my website and buy bananas! It's at http://www.bananas.com!", do you think it is more likely that you would A) Visit www.bananas.com; or B) Screw up, visit www.banana.com, follow some links, end up at a completely unrelated personal homepage for a 14 year old Malaysian girl, get discouraged, and refuse to do business with me, ever again?
If the answer is B), then, for the first time in his life, George W. Bush may be right: we really do need some education reform.
Re:Patience (Score:1)
Oh man... (Score:5)
I say wait it out and pick up some Starwars toys at the closing sale.
Re:Stop already (Score:2)
Well, what if some Big Company (tm) with Deep Pockets (tm) had bought out eToys? There is an important legal precedent that needs to be set here that will make it more difficult for corporate interests to abuse the system. And the legal interests should also be resolved so that it is perfectly clear to all concerned.
Leaving it fuzzy is what lawyers thrive on. Leaving it fuzzy will leave the door open for more stupid stuff like this in the future. Therefore, although eToys may be getting the short end of the stick, this is a stick they tried to use agains others. in this context we need to set an example and we need to close the door.
Re:two wrongs... (Score:2)
Ahhh, wouldn't be the first time.
Back when nvidia was the new kid on the 3D Accelerated card block, 3DfX sued them for alleged patent infringements. It was a serious charge back then - big companies can kill little companies with petty litigation regardless of its validity. I know I was fuming because I had just purchased a couple TNT cards because they blew the doors off of Voodoo2 (at least for Quake2). I didn't want to find myself with an unsupported chipset because some behemoth steamrolled the chip maker.
Fast forward a few years... nvidia pretty much has dominated the high end spectrum of fast 3D cards for the consumer market. 3Dfx is having a terrible time just staying afloat. They're having trouble stemming the flow of red ink. And what happens? nVidia hits them with a patent infringement lawsuit. 3dfx, of course, vowed to vigorously defend itself... but really they just could not afford the cost of that sort of legal battle.
A few weeks later, 3dfx files for chapter 11 protection. We all sort of jumped up and down shouting Serves 'em right!, but it was really just another example of how corporations pick on one another.
confusion in the courtroom (Score:1)
judge: 'which one?'
lawyer: 'etoy's'.
judge: 'er, is that etoys or etoy's?'
lawyer: 'etoy's.'
judge: '...wait, which one are you talking about?'
lawyer: 'i rest my case, your honor.'
eudas
Re:two wrongs... (Score:1)
eudas
Re:two wrongs... (Score:1)
eudas
And in related news... (Score:1)
Does this sound stupid to you? Of course it does. It's the same thing as what the two companies here are doing. Note: THIS IS NOT A TRUE STORY!
My karma's bigger than yours!
Authorities Propaganda (Score:2)
The authorities are deliberately managing system, so that domain names are not compatible to trademarks. Though they know how to make them compatible, do not do so - for reasons I shall not go into here. Needless to say, reasons based on money and power.
You will see in just the USA alone that there are 1685 trademarks that contain the word "toy". You can find them listed at: USPTO [uspto.gov].
There are also very many thousands of trademarks, that use the word "toy", in 200 other countries.
It is logical, therefore, that they ALL cannot be toy.com or similar, (etoy, eToys etc.) - else they would "infringe" upon each other.
In legal terms, it is also unfair competition that one should be allowed to use their name and ALL the others not.
BUT - authorities know the answer, allowing all trademarks to use their name on the Internet. I put this solution to USPTO and DoC - they do not deny it will solve problem. Basically, an identifier, class and country code are ESSENTIAL to identify trademarks.
All these cases, in the courts and before WIPO, are based on lies and propaganda. I am amazed so many intelligent people have been taken in. Consumer confusion is an obvious lie, used to take away the domain. They all cannot have their name - nearly ALL visitors are going to arrive at wrong location. So they are going to be "confused" anyway.
Please visit my site WIPO.org.uk [wipo.org.uk] to see the some of the laws they break.
WIPO.org.uk is the World Intellectual Piracy Organization.
Not associated with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO.org)
"note my spelling carefully now" (Score:1)
eToast (Score:2)
Meanwhile, eToys has plunged 55 percent, to $12.50, as the company effectively announced its demise. The company stated it is laying off all 293 of its remaining employees, effective April 6. The company reiterated that it anticipates its current cash - cash equivalents and cash that may be generated from operations - will be sufficient to meet its anticipated cash needs until approximately March 31. But, the company says, "there can be no assurance in this regard." In order to continue operations in 2001, the company said it would require an additional, substantial capital infusion. EToys said it does not believe additional capital will become available to the company.
Of course, I must wonder what that $12.50 buys!
Re:Oh man... (Score:2)
Come to think of it... (Score:2)
Bad Timing (Score:1)
Re:two wrongs... (Score:1)
It aint the corporation, it's the people (Score:4)
So to use the phrase "big bad corporation" is a sign that we have not identified the problem. The issue isn't the fact that there is a thing called a corporation, it's that there is an entire culture within and without the people of that corporation that compels them to behave a certain way. Success these days is getting harder to measure, if the dot-com stupidity is any kind of lesson. The mantra of "value for shareholders" belies a simplistic conception of the relationships that exist between the people in the company and the people outside of it.
As much as PR people would like you to believe there is such thing as The Authoritative Voice of The Company, there is only inhuman propaganda that seeks to distort facts to its advantage. Every one of them is just fulfilling a role that is expected of a "professional", and nobody cares about anything outside of that because it isn't their job to. Ethics, in the greater sense, is dead.
Frivilous lawsuits are a behaviour, and one that the system rewards on a daily basis. Law is the new battleground, where only ideas matter, and actual physical assets are secondary. To buy a word is insanity (I want "the"), but we are edging closer and closer to that insanity every day. I wouldn't fault etoy for attacking eToys, they are just following Sun Tzu's advice: "attack where you are strong and the enemy is weak".
The ability to abstract is important. The inability to see things for what they are is killing us. We believe anything that confirms our previous views. We disbelieve anything that requires introspection, dialogue, and genuine selflessness to explore.
Corporations are the new power in the world. Forget about what you've been told about democracy: the power to direct the energy of the human population lies in the hands of the elite. This has been true for thousands of years, and has never been otherwise (except for a brief time in Spain...). The fact that one class of elite has been usurped by another, over and over, century after century, is just detail. The new elite is establishing itself on the amoral ground of Law, and this is where the power will flow from.
From Antigua, from Singapore, from offshore. The fight is not with each other (ie: company A vs. company B), but for the dominance of the new paradigm: the corporate "We" over the democratic "We".
Play the game. Surrender to your greed, your hate. Join the Dark Side. You have no idea of its power...
We thieves, we liars, we vandals, and poets. Networked agents of Cthulhu Borealis.
Re:Oh man... (Score:4)
They must have adopted the Amazon.com business model.
The moral of the story... (Score:3)
Stop already (Score:3)
Kick em while they're down (Score:3)
Now that eToys is tottering on going titsup.com (as The Register puts it) I think it's only poetic justice that it will be Etoy driving a nail in the coffin. It makes sense on their part to try to help kill eToys, who could restart their suit at a future date.
And I'll tell you for why... (Score:4)
EToys have registered e-toy.com to point to their web site - that's cybersquatting, I believe, as well as trademark infringement.
EToys don't have a leg to stand on here, I think...
Re:And I'll tell you for why... (Score:2)