<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The U.S. Doesn&#8217;t Have a Monopoly on Stupid IP Court Decisions</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.feld.com/wp/archives/2008/02/the-us-doesnt-have-a-monopoly-on-stupid-ip-court-decisions.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.feld.com/wp/archives/2008/02/the-us-doesnt-have-a-monopoly-on-stupid-ip-court-decisions.html</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 01:23:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave</title>
		<link>http://www.feld.com/wp/archives/2008/02/the-us-doesnt-have-a-monopoly-on-stupid-ip-court-decisions.html/comment-page-1#comment-7537</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:55:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.feld.com/wp/?p=2081#comment-7537</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m surprised you&#039;re so flip about trademark protection issues.  Granted, these location-oriented trademarks involve more complicated issues, but there are good reasons to have protection for trademarks and brand names. &lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Or maybe you wouldn&#039;t mind if I start a company called StillSecure or Lijit?   </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#039;m surprised you&#039;re so flip about trademark protection issues.  Granted, these location-oriented trademarks involve more complicated issues, but there are good reasons to have protection for trademarks and brand names. </p>
<p>Or maybe you wouldn&#039;t mind if I start a company called StillSecure or Lijit?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: steve_bergs2127</title>
		<link>http://www.feld.com/wp/archives/2008/02/the-us-doesnt-have-a-monopoly-on-stupid-ip-court-decisions.html/comment-page-1#comment-7554</link>
		<dc:creator>steve_bergs2127</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:55:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.feld.com/wp/?p=2081#comment-7554</guid>
		<description>I need to agree with Dave.  This seems to me like a consortium of producers protecting their unique brand name.  I see the logic in it much more than I see the logic in software patents. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I need to agree with Dave.  This seems to me like a consortium of producers protecting their unique brand name.  I see the logic in it much more than I see the logic in software patents.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bfeld</title>
		<link>http://www.feld.com/wp/archives/2008/02/the-us-doesnt-have-a-monopoly-on-stupid-ip-court-decisions.html/comment-page-1#comment-7562</link>
		<dc:creator>bfeld</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:55:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.feld.com/wp/?p=2081#comment-7562</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t think I&#039;m flip about trademark.  I just think this one is particularly weird given the 800 year history and the fact that I&#039;ve probably each 100 pounds of parmesan cheese in my life but I doubt I&#039;ve ever eaten any from Parma.  I&#039;m not a legal scholar nor do I pretend to be, but based on my read of this article, it seems that &quot;Parmigiano Reggiano&quot; is the phrase that should be protected.  I could get my mind around the notion that only cheese manufacturers from Parma should be able to refer to this 800 year old delicacy as &quot;Parmigiano Reggiano&quot;, but my simple mind doesn&#039;t get that the now generic term &quot;Parmesan&quot; should be the protected term. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#039;t think I&#039;m flip about trademark.  I just think this one is particularly weird given the 800 year history and the fact that I&#039;ve probably each 100 pounds of parmesan cheese in my life but I doubt I&#039;ve ever eaten any from Parma.  I&#039;m not a legal scholar nor do I pretend to be, but based on my read of this article, it seems that &quot;Parmigiano Reggiano&quot; is the phrase that should be protected.  I could get my mind around the notion that only cheese manufacturers from Parma should be able to refer to this 800 year old delicacy as &quot;Parmigiano Reggiano&quot;, but my simple mind doesn&#039;t get that the now generic term &quot;Parmesan&quot; should be the protected term.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jason</title>
		<link>http://www.feld.com/wp/archives/2008/02/the-us-doesnt-have-a-monopoly-on-stupid-ip-court-decisions.html/comment-page-1#comment-7564</link>
		<dc:creator>Jason</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:55:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.feld.com/wp/?p=2081#comment-7564</guid>
		<description>Come on folks!  This isn&#039;t at all about Trademarks or protection local producers in a global market, this is about some lawyer wanting to make a buck.  Or perhaps the EU court is trying to gain favor with its citizens?  (I can rip on the US courts the same way, I&#039;m not playing favorites). &lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
 I&#039;ve been eating Parmesan cheese all of my life - long before the Internet, cell phones and CNN.  Now, granted it was the crappy out-of-the-green-paper-can Kraft type, but to say that something has changed recently because of globalization is disingenuous because it&#039;s been a &quot;problem&quot; forever.  My mother would buy the cheap junk and I&#039;d be excited to go out to eat and get the real stuff.  I have a real issue with anyone claiming &quot;changed circumstances&quot; 800 years later. &lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Furthermore, the entire goal of Trademark law is to prevent the likelihood of confusion from a consumer point of view.  That&#039;s it -  that&#039;s what it is for.  If you want to start a car company called Lijit, or a home security company for old folks homes called Still Secure, have at it.   &lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Question:  will this ruling protect consumers by ending their &quot;confusion?&quot;  I&#039;ve read as much as I can about this case and I don&#039;t see that issue being taken into account which is the only issue that should matter in trademark cases.  Are consumers confused?  Do they understand the difference between these cheeses already?  I&#039;d argue (unscientifically) that if you are buying Kraft, you are never going to know the difference and if you are going to the cheese store or cheese aisle and plunking down $20 a pound for the real stuff, you already know - the label says it all today as far as place of origin.   &lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
What this ruling will do is make it so some very good &quot;Parma-esque&quot; producers in other regions are going to have to name their cheese differently, thus confusing consumers who no longer can find what they really want to buy.  It will protect the local producers and potentially increase sales if the consumer now sees only one brand of Parmesan at their local market and feels forced to buy that particular brand.  But producer protection isn&#039;t what Trademark law was meant to protect.  Trademark analysis about consumer protection. &lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
And at the end of the day, I find it silly that so much effort is going into an issue about food, just as it angers me how much time our Congress is spending tracking down doping baseball players.  I wish we could all just have a nice home-cooked meal and laugh at ourselves. &lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
 </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Come on folks!  This isn&#039;t at all about Trademarks or protection local producers in a global market, this is about some lawyer wanting to make a buck.  Or perhaps the EU court is trying to gain favor with its citizens?  (I can rip on the US courts the same way, I&#039;m not playing favorites). </p>
<p> I&#039;ve been eating Parmesan cheese all of my life &#8211; long before the Internet, cell phones and CNN.  Now, granted it was the crappy out-of-the-green-paper-can Kraft type, but to say that something has changed recently because of globalization is disingenuous because it&#039;s been a &quot;problem&quot; forever.  My mother would buy the cheap junk and I&#039;d be excited to go out to eat and get the real stuff.  I have a real issue with anyone claiming &quot;changed circumstances&quot; 800 years later. </p>
<p>Furthermore, the entire goal of Trademark law is to prevent the likelihood of confusion from a consumer point of view.  That&#039;s it &#8211;  that&#039;s what it is for.  If you want to start a car company called Lijit, or a home security company for old folks homes called Still Secure, have at it.   </p>
<p>Question:  will this ruling protect consumers by ending their &quot;confusion?&quot;  I&#039;ve read as much as I can about this case and I don&#039;t see that issue being taken into account which is the only issue that should matter in trademark cases.  Are consumers confused?  Do they understand the difference between these cheeses already?  I&#039;d argue (unscientifically) that if you are buying Kraft, you are never going to know the difference and if you are going to the cheese store or cheese aisle and plunking down $20 a pound for the real stuff, you already know &#8211; the label says it all today as far as place of origin.   </p>
<p>What this ruling will do is make it so some very good &quot;Parma-esque&quot; producers in other regions are going to have to name their cheese differently, thus confusing consumers who no longer can find what they really want to buy.  It will protect the local producers and potentially increase sales if the consumer now sees only one brand of Parmesan at their local market and feels forced to buy that particular brand.  But producer protection isn&#039;t what Trademark law was meant to protect.  Trademark analysis about consumer protection. </p>
<p>And at the end of the day, I find it silly that so much effort is going into an issue about food, just as it angers me how much time our Congress is spending tracking down doping baseball players.  I wish we could all just have a nice home-cooked meal and laugh at ourselves. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave</title>
		<link>http://www.feld.com/wp/archives/2008/02/the-us-doesnt-have-a-monopoly-on-stupid-ip-court-decisions.html/comment-page-1#comment-7568</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:55:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.feld.com/wp/?p=2081#comment-7568</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s a generic term outside Italy, but apparently there &quot;Parmesan&quot; literally means &quot;cheese from Parma.&quot;  This is one of the things that happens when you unify the economic laws of previously separate countries - either you can respect the rights of the former nations or you can overturn them - they&#039;ve apparently decided to respect them in this case. Also, my impression is that in Europe, the place things are made has a significance that is hard for us transient Americans to grasp. It may not be the right decision, but it&#039;s not stupid or absurd. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#039;s a generic term outside Italy, but apparently there &quot;Parmesan&quot; literally means &quot;cheese from Parma.&quot;  This is one of the things that happens when you unify the economic laws of previously separate countries &#8211; either you can respect the rights of the former nations or you can overturn them &#8211; they&#039;ve apparently decided to respect them in this case. Also, my impression is that in Europe, the place things are made has a significance that is hard for us transient Americans to grasp. It may not be the right decision, but it&#039;s not stupid or absurd.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.feld.com/wp/archives/2008/02/the-us-doesnt-have-a-monopoly-on-stupid-ip-court-decisions.html/comment-page-1#comment-7570</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:55:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.feld.com/wp/?p=2081#comment-7570</guid>
		<description>The real question this post inspires is how anyone who lacked the insight to be against software&amp;internet patents by 2000, which was well behind the curve of anyone with a clue, managed to become a venture capitalist.. and how much damage any publicity of that fact has done to his credibility in the eyes of any software&amp;internet companies. To have insight into the future of software and the internet you have to understand the basics of the business and to be able to understand the dynamics that come into play in real world businesses such the government they often need to deal with or sell to (eg, that government entities are often broken, slow, and bloated).  No respectable software engineer with knowledge of the situation at the time would have disputed that patents were being granted for obvious things for which there was often prior art. Those against software patents use them for defensive purposes. Aside from the very rare few that have something that truly should be patentable any other use of the government to patent something obvious in order to use the government against another company is legal but unethical. &lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
    Its laudable that at some point in the 8 years since then he learned his lesson.. but the question is why he hadn&#039;t learned it several years before that or why it took more than a few moments back in 2000 to do more than discover that the patent office is broken and granting bogus software patents to be against them. Unless there was some illusion the system could/would be quickly fixed and all the existing patents somehow re-examined in a reasonable amount of time.. which seems a bit naive in the real world.  </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The real question this post inspires is how anyone who lacked the insight to be against software&amp;internet patents by 2000, which was well behind the curve of anyone with a clue, managed to become a venture capitalist.. and how much damage any publicity of that fact has done to his credibility in the eyes of any software&amp;internet companies. To have insight into the future of software and the internet you have to understand the basics of the business and to be able to understand the dynamics that come into play in real world businesses such the government they often need to deal with or sell to (eg, that government entities are often broken, slow, and bloated).  No respectable software engineer with knowledge of the situation at the time would have disputed that patents were being granted for obvious things for which there was often prior art. Those against software patents use them for defensive purposes. Aside from the very rare few that have something that truly should be patentable any other use of the government to patent something obvious in order to use the government against another company is legal but unethical. </p>
<p>    Its laudable that at some point in the 8 years since then he learned his lesson.. but the question is why he hadn&#039;t learned it several years before that or why it took more than a few moments back in 2000 to do more than discover that the patent office is broken and granting bogus software patents to be against them. Unless there was some illusion the system could/would be quickly fixed and all the existing patents somehow re-examined in a reasonable amount of time.. which seems a bit naive in the real world.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bfeld</title>
		<link>http://www.feld.com/wp/archives/2008/02/the-us-doesnt-have-a-monopoly-on-stupid-ip-court-decisions.html/comment-page-1#comment-7571</link>
		<dc:creator>bfeld</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:55:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.feld.com/wp/?p=2081#comment-7571</guid>
		<description>Dave - you are correct.  My view is evolving. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dave &#8211; you are correct.  My view is evolving.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jason Mendelson</title>
		<link>http://www.feld.com/wp/archives/2008/02/the-us-doesnt-have-a-monopoly-on-stupid-ip-court-decisions.html/comment-page-1#comment-7572</link>
		<dc:creator>Jason Mendelson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:55:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.feld.com/wp/?p=2081#comment-7572</guid>
		<description>Actually, I think his comment is for me, Brad, that I&#039;m the numb nut who took 8 years to figure it out.  Honestly, I was being a bit glib, it really only took me two years.  But in all fairness, my background was a corporate / IP attorney, and prior to that, I was drafting provisional patents as a software engineer.  I had to make a complete 180 on all of this and so it took me a while.  Hopefully the commenter is happy that he has another person on his side of the issue regardless of how long it took me to get there. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually, I think his comment is for me, Brad, that I&#039;m the numb nut who took 8 years to figure it out.  Honestly, I was being a bit glib, it really only took me two years.  But in all fairness, my background was a corporate / IP attorney, and prior to that, I was drafting provisional patents as a software engineer.  I had to make a complete 180 on all of this and so it took me a while.  Hopefully the commenter is happy that he has another person on his side of the issue regardless of how long it took me to get there.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bfeld</title>
		<link>http://www.feld.com/wp/archives/2008/02/the-us-doesnt-have-a-monopoly-on-stupid-ip-court-decisions.html/comment-page-1#comment-7581</link>
		<dc:creator>bfeld</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:55:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.feld.com/wp/?p=2081#comment-7581</guid>
		<description>I agree that the logic in this is much more compelling than the logic of software patents!  But - I still don&#039;t really get it... </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree that the logic in this is much more compelling than the logic of software patents!  But &#8211; I still don&#039;t really get it&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bfeld</title>
		<link>http://www.feld.com/wp/archives/2008/02/the-us-doesnt-have-a-monopoly-on-stupid-ip-court-decisions.html/comment-page-1#comment-7584</link>
		<dc:creator>bfeld</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:55:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.feld.com/wp/?p=2081#comment-7584</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m not sure I understand your logic.  I think I infer that you are suggesting that I don&#039;t have a clue because you think I didn&#039;t oppose software patents until recently.  &lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
I&#039;ve opposed software patents since 1988 when I wrote my masters thesis at MIT about innovation in the software industry.  This is not a new position for me. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#039;m not sure I understand your logic.  I think I infer that you are suggesting that I don&#039;t have a clue because you think I didn&#039;t oppose software patents until recently.  </p>
<p>I&#039;ve opposed software patents since 1988 when I wrote my masters thesis at MIT about innovation in the software industry.  This is not a new position for me.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
<!-- WP Super Cache 0.8.9.1 -->
