Are alcohol and basketball related for the purposes of trademarking? Probably not. However, instead of ridiculing Jagermeister for launching a baseless opposition, I would think that what they're really trying to do is to get Milwaukee Bucks to make an undertaking that they would not be getting into the alcohol business.
Andrei Mincov Founder and CEO of Trademark Factory® ( https://trademarkfactory.com ), the only firm in the world where licensed lawyers and trademark agents will help you register your trademarks with a free comprehensive trademark search, for a single all-inclusive flat fee, with a 100% money-back guarantee.
This is how it always starts.
First the statists, collectivists and utilitarians destroy copyright and intellectual property; then they destroy property rights altogether; then they start shooting those who happen to not benefit the collective.
Every socialist country has gone through that.
Using something that someone else had created against the creator's wish is NOT a right. The scope of such exceptions must be extremely limited. The only instance when it should extend to situations when the copyright owner expressly disagrees with the use is limited quotations from the work for the purpose of critiquing that same work.
I have written about it in my old article at http://mincov.com/articles/index.php/fullarticle/copyright_and_the_great_socialist_degradation/
I've been saying this for years as well.
Just as there can be no balance between the interests of rapists and their victims, there can be no balance between copyright owners and those who want to use copyright owners' works against their will.
Copyright laws are intended to protect the WEAKER party to the transaction - the author without whom the work would not have existed.
Morally, public interest is of no relevance to the copyright equation. Just because the majority of the population would benefit from free use of someone else's work does not mean that they have ANY right to such use if the author (or his licensee or assignee) chooses against it.
BestNetTech has not posted any stories submitted by Andrei Mincov.
There's a reason to their madness
Are alcohol and basketball related for the purposes of trademarking? Probably not. However, instead of ridiculing Jagermeister for launching a baseless opposition, I would think that what they're really trying to do is to get Milwaukee Bucks to make an undertaking that they would not be getting into the alcohol business.
Andrei Mincov
Founder and CEO of Trademark Factory® ( https://trademarkfactory.com ), the only firm in the world where licensed lawyers and trademark agents will help you register your trademarks with a free comprehensive trademark search, for a single all-inclusive flat fee, with a 100% money-back guarantee.
Re: "Would Apparently Prefer His Book Rot In Obscurity"
This is so true...
I'm always amazed by the people insisting on their right to make decisions for someone else.
This is not whose model is better. This is about whether authors have a right to make decisions for themselves.
Destruction of capitalism always entails destruction of intellectual property
This is how it always starts.
First the statists, collectivists and utilitarians destroy copyright and intellectual property; then they destroy property rights altogether; then they start shooting those who happen to not benefit the collective.
Every socialist country has gone through that.
Using something that someone else had created against the creator's wish is NOT a right. The scope of such exceptions must be extremely limited. The only instance when it should extend to situations when the copyright owner expressly disagrees with the use is limited quotations from the work for the purpose of critiquing that same work.
I have written about it in my old article at http://mincov.com/articles/index.php/fullarticle/copyright_and_the_great_socialist_degradation/
Exactly, there can be no balance. And it's a good thing.
I've been saying this for years as well.
Just as there can be no balance between the interests of rapists and their victims, there can be no balance between copyright owners and those who want to use copyright owners' works against their will.
Copyright laws are intended to protect the WEAKER party to the transaction - the author without whom the work would not have existed.
Morally, public interest is of no relevance to the copyright equation. Just because the majority of the population would benefit from free use of someone else's work does not mean that they have ANY right to such use if the author (or his licensee or assignee) chooses against it.