Intel Lawyers Again Go Too Far In Trademark Bullying

from the back-it-down dept

Chip giant Intel has a bit of a reputation for being a trademark bully at times, threatening or suing many companies just for having "intel" in their name somewhere -- including a travel agency and a jeans company. Now, before anyone brings it up, yes, as a trademark holder the law requires you to enforce your trademark against infringement, lest it become considered "generic" (such as xerox machines, kleenex tissues, aspirin and other brand names that became generic). But, the key in all of those generic situations was that the use was applied to things that directly competed with the original brand's products. People referred to other tissues as "kleenex" and it stuck. Intel's lawyers seem to go out of their way to find potential infringement where there obviously is none at all.

Paul Alan Levy alerts us to the latest such case, where Intel has sued the operators of the Mexico Watch newsletter, because its domain is LatinIntel.com. Of course, the reason for that is that it is using the commonly accepted abbreviation of "intel" as short for "intelligence." It's common shorthand, especially within government circles, to refer to gathered intelligence as simply "intel." The owners of the site explained this to Intel, and in return were given a boilerplate explanation about trademark law, insisting that since Intel's trademark is so valuable, it still has to stop others from using it -- even if they're in a totally different business, which is an interesting interpretation of trademark law, and one not supported by the courts in most cases.

More importantly, no one is going to look at LatinIntel.com and confuse it for the world's largest computer chip maker. No one is going to look at that site and wonder how come they can't order a Centrino processor. There's simply no confusion at all. Even worse, it appears that Intel's lawyers dragged out this situation far too long. They first contacted the site back in 2007, and the site's owner responded with a clear explanation of why the name was not infringing. Since then, there have been periodic bursts of contact from different Intel lawyers (it apparently seems to change each time), followed by months of silence, before a new group of lawyers starts pestering the site again. Finally, after more than two years of this back and forth, Intel sued Mexico Watch, even though it's not even close to competitive and any "moron in a hurry" (as the popular trademark test notes) would clearly know the difference between a site about Mexican politics and a company selling microprocessors.

22 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Congress Not Yet Willing To Outlaw Being A Jerk Online

from the that-whole-free-speech-thing dept

In the wake of the whole Megan Meier/Lori Drew thing, politicians started shoving each other aside to introduce "anti-cyber bullying legislation" that would outlaw being a jerk. The whole thing was pretty ridiculous. People are going to be jerks. You can't outlaw it. Beyond just the First Amendment issue, the simple fact is some people will act like jerks some of the time. It happens. It doesn't mean that it's good, but that also doesn't mean that you can just outlaw it. Of course, seeing as this is the type of legislation that politicians like to claim is "to protect the children" and gets them in the press, there's always a chance that laws like this get some momentum. Thankfully, it looks like our Congressional Reps. at least recognize what a dumb idea this is. While Rep. Linda Sanchez insists that such a law is needed, it appears that other politicians are not very interested, pointing out the First Amendment issues, as well as the unintended consequences of making such a vague concept a criminal offense.

21 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Anti-bullying Laws Don't Work Offline; Why Do Politicians Think They'll Work Online?

from the bullying-is-bad,-m'kay? dept

There's no denying that school bullying can be a terrible thing for those who are being bullied. But, in the last few years, the urge to overprotect has gone to ridiculous lengths, including various "anti-bullying" laws (not to mention the silly idea that if Spiderman told kids to stop bullying, they would). Yet, as Eric Goldman points out, a new report notes that there's no evidence that anti-bullying laws actually do anything at all to prevent or stop bullying. It's one of those laws that people want because it sounds good, rather than actually doing anything good. Politicians pass them because who could possibly be in favor of bullying? But the problem is that these laws don't actually do anything, and now there are all sorts of attempts to expand them online where they still won't do anything to solve the problem, but will be used to go after people that prosecutors don't like.

31 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Texas Politicians Want To Make It A Felony To Create Intimidating Fake Online Profiles

from the if-you-intimidate,-please-be-real dept

The latest in a long line of questionable "cyberbullying" legislation has shown up in Texas, where the legislature has approved a bill that would make it a felony to create a fake social networking profile with intent to "harm, defraud, intimidate, or threaten" anyone. Of course, that seems rather broad. Oddly, the article doesn't mention the Lori Drew case (Update: actually, it does mention Lori Drew at the bottom... but says this law wouldn't apply, because it only applies to fake profiles of "real people"), though, it does mention the Tony La Russa/Twitter legal battle, even though it's difficult to think any court would rule a parody profile as being with intent to harm, defraud, intimidate or threaten. Of course, even if the bill is signed into law, Eric Goldman notes that it would likely have trouble surviving much of a challenge, pointing out the oddity of singling out "social networking sites" and (more importantly) the fact that any such law would likely ban all sorts of protected free speech. Still, "anti-cyberbullying" laws are all the rage these days, and politicians want to make sure they can tell constituents that they're out there "protecting the children," so expect to see plenty more of this type of legislation.

26 Comments | Leave a Comment..

What is Cyberbullying Anyway?

from the good-to-know-*before*-the-witch-hunt dept

We've been hearing a lot about "cyberbullying" lately. Cases like the Lori Drew incident have got politicians and teachers all over looking to pass vague new rules and laws (or twist existing ones) to punish behavior they feel is wrong. The problem is, no one really seems to be able to define the term, at least not in a way that really distinguishes it from simply being a jerk online, so it's encouraging to see a paper from a vice president of Stetson University, Darby Dickerson, calling on educators to slow down and define cyberbullying before creating policies about it, though I'm not sure she gets to the heart of the issue. Dickerson observes that people have been using the term often and easily, without any real consensus on what it includes and what it doesn't. In the absence of a generally accepted scholarly or legal definition, she calls on universities to take four steps before creating a cyberbullying policy:

1. consider the types of activity that might be included within the term,
2. consider the type of harm,
3. consider the level of intent required by the offender,
4. determine the extent that it will address off-campus conduct.

This is good advice and Dickerson does a pretty good job of outlining the concerns. She notes that conduct such as "cyberstalking" or "cyberthreats" might be included, while issues of fraud probably shouldn't be, arguing that "not all misconduct that occurs online should be labelled as cyberbullying." She cautions institutions to remember "free speech and related constitutional concerns." She's skeptical of extending the term to include simply being a jerk online, and she questions labeling students as cyberbullies who don't display real malice or hostility. She also raises lots of important questions about what it means to be "off-campus" in cyberspace. Dickerson concludes by urging institutions to clearly define the term before enacting policies, highlighting many important questions that must be answered first.

Yet... Dickerson ignores one major consideration: why have a separate policy for cyberbullying anyway? It seems to me that in order to consider these issues sanely, we need to stop pretending they're separate things simply because we apply a "cyber" prefix to them. What's a "cyberthreat?" How is that different from a threat in general? Is a "cyberthreat" just a threat made online? What if it's made with a cell phone instead? What about a plain old telephone? Yes, the medium must be considered ("you're going to die" is different when shouted in a playground than written in letters cut out of a magazine...), but do we create separate terms or policies for each medium? We do often need to re-examine our laws and policies in the face of new technologies, but it rarely makes sense to have separate "cyberpolicies" instead of ensuring that existing policies are adapted to handle the new technologies. Why not ensure that existing harassment policies cover real harassment that occurs online instead of creating a new "cyberharassment" policy? Without a consideration of the difference between cyberbullying and bullying in general at the heart of this discussion, people run the risk of spending their energy blaming the technology and grandstanding, creating new policies with troubling unintended consequences rather than addressing the real issue, which often may well just be plain old bullying in a new context. The new context can certainly present new challenges that might warrant policy changes, but people should be careful not to get distracted from the issue of bullying just because it has "cyber" tacked onto the front.

Blaise Alleyne is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Blaise Alleyne and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

26 Comments | Leave a Comment..

What's The Goal Of Anti-Cyberbullying Moves?

from the treating-the-symptoms dept

The WSJ has a column talking about some changes sites like YouTube and MySpace are making to make it easier to flag abusive content. The sites are reacting to the growing storm about cyberbullying, and are perhaps attempting to head off legislation that could inflict onerous regulations on them. The column focuses on the speed with which sites -- often hampered by sheer volume, as well as the number of unfounded reports -- can react to the flags and take down offending content. But should removing content that depicts or constitutes bullying or harassment be the ultimate goal? Like other reporting systems, it's a little hard to tell if these will actually do anything to get to the root of the problem: the bullying itself. Treating cyberbullying as separate and distinct from bullying or other abusive behavior that happens offline just masks the underlying issue. Without addressing that, the real problems for the victims will continue, regardless of whether their tormentors' activities get displayed online or not.

Carlo Longino is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Carlo Longino and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

15 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Politicians Still Trying To Outlaw Being A Jerk

from the it's-not-going-to-work dept

Reader eoinmonty writes in to let us know that Irish politicians are pressuring mobile phone companies to stop mobile phone bullying, and saying that if the companies can't do so, they'll be forced to put in place laws that require them to stop bullying. The whole thing is rather ridiculous, and, as one phone company rep accurately pointed out: "It is unrealistic and unfair to expect mobile phone operators to solve what is a broader societal problem." Indeed. It seems as if politicians think that somehow the mobile operators can just snap their fingers and stop undesired activity. They can't. And, to let them in on a little secret: even passing a law won't do much to help. People are going to be bullies -- and passing a law or asking the mobile phone companies to hold back the tide won't do much to stop them.

39 Comments | Leave a Comment..

The RIAA's Playbook: No New Business Models Without RIAA Ownership

from the it's-that-simple dept

Mathew Ingram covers the details of Muxtape's run-in with the RIAA. As you may recall, last month the rather useful site that let people create online "mix tapes" that could be streamed to others was shut down thanks to the RIAA. The site's founder has now admitted that he tried negotiating with the RIAA, but that it was nearly impossible. The RIAA's representatives started the "negotiation" by saying they were about to shut the site down, and then complained to Amazon (whose S3 service hosted the files) to get access to the files blocked. Now, that concerns me for a few reasons. I had created a Muxtape when it first launched, but it had no RIAA label music on it. So, why would Amazon block access to it?

However, the real point of the post is just to highlight how the RIAA views these things. As has been discussed, the RIAA wants to shut down these types of sites. By now, we've seen the pattern over and over again. The RIAA has always been unable to actually innovate with its own online offerings -- in large part because the record labels still think about how to control the music and how to limit what consumers can do with it. So, instead of learning what's innovative, the RIAA has simply decided on a two pronged strategy: (1) get every new and innovative site shut down and (2) offer them one way to return: if they hand over a big chunk of equity.

Very few people seem to be talking about this, but most of the "agreements" that the big labels have reached with various new and innovative sites have involved handing over equity. Basically, the record labels are using a protection racket system: give us some equity, or we'll shut you down. Of course, all this is really doing is slowing down much needed innovation in the music marketplace. Instead, we get bells and whistles like MySpace Music (owned, in part, by the major record labels), rather than something truly useful and innovative.

24 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Now Canadian Teachers Want Cyberbullying To Be A Criminal Offense

from the overreact-much? dept

At some point, people need to realize that there are some people out there who just do jerkry things. In fact, at some point or another, probably most everyone is a jerk to someone else. It's no fun to be on the receiving end of someone being a jerk -- but it happens. However, in the last few years, there's been this silly focus on trying to turn online jerks into criminals. We've already highlighted such an effort underway in the US, but now a bunch of teachers in Canada are pushing to make cyberbullying a criminal offense. Yes, it's important to deal with cyberbullies, but charging them with a crime clearly goes too far.

26 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Should It Be Against The Law To Be A Jerk Online?

from the well,-it-may-become-law-soon dept

In large part due to the sad story of Megan Meier, we're suddenly seeing a rush for politicians to rush through "anti-cyberbullying" that make cyberbullying illegal. It's hard to see how such legislation will pass constitutional muster, but it seems to be more along the lines of previous legislation attempts to "protect the children" that will do little to actually protect children. Certainly, kids getting bullied is a problem -- and cyberbullying can make it that much more difficult for kids who feel that they "can't escape" as the bullying can follow them outside of school. But that doesn't mean that tossing kids in jail for taunting other kids is the answer. At some point, people need to realize that there are people out there who are going to act like jerks -- and throwing people in jail isn't going to change that, though it likely will lead to frivolous lawsuits whenever some folks get upset about something someone else said to them.

48 Comments | Leave a Comment..