Yeah, sure, but you're not allowed to compete by appropriating someone else's intellectual property, so if they have a valid copyright claim then this wouldn't be "competition" any more than bootleg DVDs are. You also can't compete by passing yourself off as a competitor, in case there's a consumer confusion trademark issue at play.
Marcus Carab profile , 28 Oct am. It's not a non-sequiter at all. The stated purpose of copyright law is to promote the progress of useful arts. Basic economics teach us that competition is the most powerful force in promoting said progress. Thus any time copyrights especially questionable ones, like this - where is the unique expression?
Highlighting and examining is far from "non-sequiter". ChronoFish profile , 28 Oct am. There are very clear laws on deceiving the consumer. You'll probably find that the rubber-band "competition" would not exist without Walmart - and will likely die once Walmart is done with them. Kids love them. The name and the design together make them recognizable to the consumer.
The idea of patent law is to allow a company a chance to make money from their innovation before a copy-cat behemoth like Walmart forces them out of business. I'm not sure that this case is one of them however.
This seems to me be the classic case where it works to protect the small guy from lbs gorilla. Anonymous Coward , 28 Oct am. You're saying patent and copyright law exists so that no one sells a product for less money? Are you serious? One effect of modern patent usage is that a small-time inventor can use the exclusive right status to become a licensor. This allows the inventor to accumulate capital from licensing the invention and may allow innovation to occur because he or she may choose to not manage a manufacturing buildup for the invention.
Thus the inventor's time and energy can be spent on pure innovation, allowing others to concentrate on manufacturability Marcus: If the claim is illegitimate, then they're misusing copyright law to go after a competitor, yes. But if there's validity to the claimfor example if the Silly Bandz have particularly interesting designs that the WalMart ones are very close tothen what's being stifled isn't legitimate competition but inappropriate appropriation.
I think it's a non-sequitur partly because it ignores whether or not the claim is valid, which seems to be the important factor in whether or not this is actually stifling competition, or in fact promoting competition by forcing the competitor to come up with their own original designs. Or, in the trademark line of thinking, it would be whether this promotes competition by forcing the new entity to compete on the merits of the designs rather than piggy-backing on goodwill and confusing customers.
Btw, slight correction that obviously doesn't go to the core of your pointcopyright actually comes from the "science" side of that clause in the constitution. Not trying to snark, it's just an interesting point on the old meanings. John William Nelson As with Marcus, fair point that it's possible this is an instance of stifling competition, and that copyright is meant to encourage competitionmy use of "non sequitur" perhaps wasn't precise.
I think that comment in the original post annoys me because of how it simply ignores issues like what you're raising. What I take from the comment is that it's a foregone conclusion this is stifling competition, and that it's therefore unabashedly bad. It ignores the questions of exactly what infringements are being claimed, whether those claims have merit, and even if skipping those questions, whether this could actually promote competition in the ways I mentioned in my response to Marcus and which you alluded to in your response to me.
They could certainly have a valid trademark claim, or even a copyright claim depending on whether any of their designs do actually rise above things like simple shapes. In either case, I think the comment does lean more towards being a true non sequitur then again, I could be misusing the term ; if competition is being stifled to protect consumers trademark or original designs copyright , then it's right that competition be stifled in that way.
While, yes, we could argue about whether copyright should exist at all, I don't know that the original comment can fairly be read as bringing up such a sweeping challenge. The intent I'm inferring is simply that this one plaintiff is misusing copyright, not that copyright is wrong. Similarly, I don't think the original comment was highlighting the interesting tension of both promoting and hindering competition through the same law; that's an interesting topic, but not really present here.
So to both of youI may have gone too far in labeling it a non-sequitur, it may not be entirely irrelevant. But I think it overlooks all of the genuinely interesting issues at play in order for a cheap shot about how clearly the plaintiff is being bad.
Yes, we like competition, but I think the implication I'm seeing in original post that "competition is good" simply wraps the issue up also goes too far. John William Nelson profile , 28 Oct am. I agree with your Trademark assessment see my own comment , but I disagree with your copyright comment regarding the idea of 'competition is good.
Copyright chills competition by providing a monopoly on the expression of an idea or fact. The question is the point at which this monopoly is good for the economy as compared to the point at which it is bad.
On one hand, it may encourage new expression. On the other hand, it limits the dissemination of ideas. Trademark, on the other hand, provides a monopoly on a mark used as a source identifier. This is quite different because the expression itself is not in theory monopolized. Rather, it is the identity that is monopolized. So to say you can't fairly compete by using someone else's copyright begs the question of whether copyright should exist, and whether it provides fair competition to begin with.
Conversely, as you pointed out, it isn't really fair trying to pass yourself off as a competitor in order to compete -- you should be required to be honest in your identity. Anonymous Coward , 28 Oct pm. You mean people can't make cars, water bottles, clothes, medicine because someone else is making them? I'm shocked. Competition is good for the economy -- but not when competition seeks to trick the public into thinking they are buying something they are not. That is why Trademark exists -- it is intended to provide customers with a way to identify the source of the products they buy.
If I buy a Coke in a Coke bottle with a Coke logo I know it is from the Coca-Cola Bottlers; not some two-bit sugar-water bottling company down the road. I know what to expect in theory because Coke's trademark identifies the source of the soft drink.
Here, Silly Bandz has more of a claim to their Trademark being infringed. That's the basis of the too similar package argument references above.
Wal-Mart's Silly Bandz competitor is trying to trade it's bands by misleading customers into thinking they are buying Silly Bandz. This is trading on the goodwill of the SillyBandz mark. Copyright is more questionable.
Copyright protects the expression of ideas or facts, it does not protect the idea or facts themselves. Similarly, it does not protect form -- especially if that form is related to its function. I cannot, for example, design a chair and seek copyright when the chair's purpose is, well, to be a chair. The question is what level of expression exists when it comes to Silly Bandz? Expression can be charted on a spectrum, with the most unique expression having the most clear protection and the least unique expression having the weakest, or 'thinnest,' protection.
See Feist v. Rural Telephone for the U. Supreme Court's take on this; it involved the copying of data from a phonebook. Exact copying of the band designs would certainly run afoul of Copyright unless they are purely functional.
Non-exact copying is more problematic. After all, if I draw a stick figure and you draw a stick figure, I am going to have a hard time arguing my expression is so unique that your 'variant' should be found to be a copy and therefore you owe me royalties. Trademark has less of these problems. SillyBandz, if they win, will prevail most likely in Trademark, not in Copyright.
Gasp Walmart would never take unfair advantage of a merchant This story is being fought in the name of Copyright infringement but the story is really bigger. Lets see they have a popular or soon to be product that they want to sell in as many stores as possible they get an invite to present to Walmart and are told that unless they cut there profit down to mere pennies which they are told they will make up in volume they will just find someone else to create a knockoff that's not worried about the environment or what goes into making the product.
When Walmart has close to a monopoly in most markets look it up you are unable to compete by better shapes or colors or whatever. Your just gonna get steam rolled. Rubbermaid went out of business when they didn't bend to Walmarts pricing requirement.
Translation: Wahhhhhhh business is hard, so let's sue Wal-Mart over a bogus copyright claim! So basically you're saying that selling stuff for cheaper is now criminal or something? Here's the other side of the story: Walmart wanted cheaper stuff, one company offered it, another didn't.
The expensive one didn't like losing its market share, so it sued. It is criminal to take another persons unique creation and claim it as your own - or worse, claim that the item you are selling is the thing you're copying. Here's another example. I'll take them home to my kids. When I got home my wife said "why did you buys these - they're junk" "I thought you let the kids have Teddy Gramms" I replied.
Someone had duplicated the "Teddy Gramms" packaging, replaced the word "Gramms" with "Bears" and sold a sub-par product at obviously a cheap price. That's not competing, that's basically a bait-n-switch. The consumer thinks he's getting one thing because he recognized the packaging without paying attention to the actual words and got something else entirely. And something he probably wouldn't have bought had the difference been more obvious. Now Dave's is a relatively small chain.
But it still has the power to have custom-packaged goods. Extrapolate that to the rubberband story and it's clear why there are laws to protect the consumer and the enterprising business from the predatory practices of large companies like Walmart. Oh yes, because clearly Silly Bandz and Crimzon Rose are so similar that customers are obviously getting confused. When a lawsuit has to cite "plastic bag packaging" and "wavy lines in the logo" as evidence, it's clearly grasping at straws.
ChronoFish profile , 28 Oct pm. I don't know. I haven't seen the Crimzon Rose packaging. But if they are using the same font, same clear on the bottom, white on the top plastic bag, same style of "wavy lines" - and only the name is different and conveniently stocked next to each other then yup.
Customers are probably thinking they are buying one thing and only realize the mix-up when their kids bring it to their attention. ChronoFish profile , 29 Oct pm. What is the difference between a Chevy Impala and a Toyota Corolla? You can tell the difference in spelling between "Impala" and "Corolla"?
Same for "Bear" and Gramms". One isn't trying be passed off as the other. You would have been better off comparing older Nissan to older Toyota or any number of lines of the GM family or ford vs mercury. Maybe you mean something more like the Honda Insight vs the Toyota Prius. In this case the design is licensed - and while maybe confusing to the consumer - not illegal.
Berenerd profile , 28 Oct am. You, AC, are an idiot. Other than being a company getting sued, mike's post is on the absurdity of Walmart a retailer in all this getting sued because some other company made something they are selling. Honestly, who cares what walmart did. Thats not what this post is about. Reading comprehension is your friend.
They are rubberbands cast in different shapes. They are popular with grades school kids and have been bannned from school classrooms because the students trade them during lessons. If there is any difference between them I would be suprised. As for who makes them they all say made in China. Lance profile , 28 Oct am. I don't see how they are party to either the trademark or the copyright infringements.
Does WalMart hold a major stake in the manufacturing company? Did WalMart dictate the packaging design? Reading the article, I cannot find any evidence that BCP actually believes that WalMart is involved in any direct way. RED — Used exclusively for inmates that must be escorted at all times. BLUE — For inmates that are of a lesser risk than red bands but still require special security measures.
Blue represents authority, structure, communication, dependability, trust and loyalty. Some shades or too much blue can project coldness. Wear blue when you want to exude power, have mental control, be conservative, respected or communicate an important message. The color that leaches life from your face and makes you look and feel older than you are. I like to say it enters the room before you do and so you feel overpowered by it.
White is associated with feelings of cleanliness, purity, and safety. And it can be used to project an absence of color or neutrality. White space helps spark creativity since it can be perceived as an unaltered, clean slate. It may not be the best color for every business. A dirty color is a clean color that has been dulled down by adding gray or black.
A dirty color can also be thought of as being muddy or muted. Both clean and dirty colors can range from very light to very dark in tone and shade. Some people are calling this hue the best color in the world.
0コメント