Slashdot Mirror
Utah Rethinking Anti-Keyword Advertising Law
Eric Goldman writes "Slashdot previously reported on Utah's recent law banning trademark-triggered keyword advertising. This week, a group of technology executives met with Utah legislators to discuss the law, and it looks like the legislature is rethinking its position. According to the Salt Lake Tribune, 'Legislative leaders are looking to tweak a troublesome trademark protection program rather than defend it in court, after an unprecedented meeting with Internet power brokers who would prefer the new registry be scrapped.'"
I wasnt expecting that. The law they put out was just and up-to-standards on modern day technology. I cant see any reason why they should reconsider such an exemplary law.
Read radical news here
Trademark is actually covered under both state and federal laws.
There's a reason proprietary and BSD-licensed software is of higher quality than GNU/*. Intelligence is GPL-incompatible.
beat u to it, whiney
when you start to look closely at the keywords they were trying to control : Brigham Young, Mormon, LDS, Mitt Romney, green jello, 2002 Winter Olympics, oh my heck, etc...
Need a simple, easy to use data tier generator? http://www.gryphinsoftware.com/
I think that "rethinking" is not a good word to use. The implication is that they are thinking again. Which further implies that they were thinking in the first place.
This is a fantastic example of perseverance and persistent stability. All sane citizens not only in united states, but in any constituencies in any country in the world should give support to Utah for continuance of this excellent example. There are tears in my eyes.
Read radical news here
OhMyHeck, the Utah Legislature is listening to some rich business owners! That's certainly the first time that has happened!
I agree it's a bad law, and Google is one of the companies against it, but this little bit from the article is interesting:
The 'Internet power brokers' were "Google, eBay, Microsoft, America Online, Yahoo, 1-800 Contacts and Overstock.com", which makes the term seem unnecessarily loaded (when Overstock.com speaks, who listens, exactly?). It appears to me that legislative leaders passed a law in order to address the interests of businesses on the net by reducing what is essentially fraudulent use of trademarks (a perfectly reasonable goal, mind you), at the possible expense of purveyors of ads and search technology. When the purveyors of ads and search technology approached them and pointed out, probably in convincing detail, that the methods they chose were asinine, they listened, and might consider repealing the law, or at least revising it to make it slightly less asinine.
This isn't deeply impressive on its own, but in the context of the usual procedures of state and federal legislatures in the United States, it's actually kind of perspicacious.
Parent may appear to be trolling, but as someone who lives here, in a city where it's illegal to sell pornography or sex toys, in a city where we celebrated New Year's on Dec 30 and Independence Day on July 3 last year (both days had the audacity to fall on Sunday), in a city where you can't buy liquour except at the state-owned store, in a city...I think you get the picture. Parent may be trolling, but he's also accurate.
As a republican I feel it my responsibity to manufacture criminals. People need punished!
thank you. my intent is really not to bait anyone. my intent is genuine. i know many people from the state of utah. i know how this place operates. i'm kind of offended by the troll marking. sure, there are lots of nice things about utah, great skiing, beautiful country, etc; but when you have a state government leaning so heavily to the right bad things are bound to occur.
In this case it's an interstate issue, not an intrastate issue which makes it federal territory.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM