Slashdot Mirror
Utah Trying To Restrict Keyword Advertising ... Again
Eric Goldman writes "The Utah legislature has tried to restrict keyword advertising twice before, with disastrous results. In 2004, Utah tried to ban keyword advertising in adware; that law was declared unconstitutional. In 2007, Utah tried to regulate competitive keyword advertising; after a firestorm of protests, Utah repealed the law in 2008. Despite this track record, Utah is trying to regulate keyword advertising a third time. HB 450 would allow trademark owners to block competitors from displaying certain types of keyword ads. In practice, this law is just another attempt by the Utah legislature to enact a law that doesn't help consumers at all but does help trademark owners suppress their online competition."
Please remove the "Mormons" tag. Not all Mormons think that way. San Francisco has liberal Mormons, Texas has conservative Mormons, and there are libertarians dispersed throughout.
Well, it's one thing if a car dealership who is not Toyota starts buying "Toyota" as a keyword. Arguably this is similar to buying Toyota.com and could be misleading to customers. It's quite another thing if you run a small grocery store called "Toyota" that delivers online in your neighborhood and you start buying Toyota keywords and they try to block you for trademark infringement.
Businesses should be able to protect their trademarks but the process should be fair. Little guys who don't compete in the same market should not get squashed.
This game will waste your life. Don't clicky!
In tiny print, at the bottom of each page: "Please do not use this site where prohibited."
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Restricting the use of language doesn't work.
It seems Utah merely wants to prevent advertisers from getting married to too many keywords.
We have a lobbyist problem at the local level not unlike at the national level. The amount of gifts that get handed out is stunning and much of it goes unreported. My thoughts are that this happenned in Utah is because whoever is pushing this knows that they have a better chance of getting away with it here than someplace like California.
Does it have something to do with one of their favorite search terms, referenced here
http://xkcd.com/522/
They want to see men kissing, but they don't want to see ads targeted to people who search for men kissing?
The problem is that lets say you are HP and Dell buys many HP keywords. This is A-OK if Dell either makes true statements about HP in their advert or offers something like Dell is better than HP, and then the advert leads you to some consumer test/report that they have.
Where is shouldn't be ok... say eBay buys keywords like Slash Dot T Shirt and their ads says something like "Slash Dot T Shirt? eBay has it all, come get Slash Dot T Shirt from eBay". Not only are they using some one else's name, perhaps even trademarked name, but what if they don't even have any? It's unfair competition and should be illegal.
1-800 Contacts will never get any of my business ever.
I suggest anyone who can use them stops as well.
That's the only vote we have any more it seems.
I'm not in Utah, could not care less about Utah, but this is flat out scummy and should be punished by hitting a company like this in the only place it hurts, their bottom line.
Sent from your iPad.
First off, I note that the "mormon" tag on the article. If there were a quote from a black leader, I wonder, would you tag the article as "black"?
I would not be so quick to bury this guy in your haste to have weaker trademarks. There is an interesting question, buried in this article. It is, what does a trademark actually buy? A trademark is a sort of a definition of an invented word, administered today by the government. A search word is as also a definition of a word, administered by a private corporation and sold to the highest bidder.
When Linux trademarks "Linux", it is to say that he has the rights to the definition of this word in some way as it pertains to his product. But, if I buy Linux on Google, then, I get the right to define the word by having my definition be placed in a preferred position.
Thus, you almost have to view trademark as a contest between the federal first come first serve word ownership mechanism, and, a private enterprise word as an auction mechanism advanced by the likes of Google.
There is a real dividing line between corporation and state, and the irony here is that those who would argue that trademarks should be less powerful by definition argue that words should be auctioned, rather than licensed, and conversely, those who argue for strong government trademarks ultimately argue that the government should control more the meaning of words rather than the free market.
I would be willing to bet that leftists who casually seek to undermine business by eliminating trademarks might be well advised to rethink that position, as they should so many others. I can't imagine that they of all people would really want a world where the definitions of words are decided by the highest bidder. It runs the risk of undermining everything that they stand for, and for that reason I'd have to conclude that people rushing to digitally behead "the mormon" might well consider that the "the mormon" is doing them a favor.
This is my sig.
The way these items get passed is with continually trying the bill again. I have seen unpopular laws passed at the local level that were thrown out repeatedly until eventually the right opposers were either not present or just plain old tired of fighting it. I believe the term is patient gradualism. Just keep trying to get a law passed, until eventually new lawmakers are present or the opposition is not present at the time.
Stay tuned for new sig...
If you try to create a google adword advert that uses a trademarked word then google already puts you into a special process for approval. If they decide that it's not a valid use of the trademark then your ad is rejected.
Try creating an advert using the word iPhone and see where that gets you.
This is a state where 58% of its inhabitants claim membership in a single religion, and the overwhelming majority of the legislature comes from this demographic. They're not exactly known for their progressive views on technology. Might I suggest we kindly totally and completely ignore this state? They're clearly out of touch with not just reality, but the rest of the country as well. At worst, Utah-nians just won't be able to go online, and golly gee what a shame that would be. -_- Now go ahead and mod me to hell for stating the obvious. Or can we at least re-classify this under "It's funny, laugh." ?
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Restricting the use of language doesn't work.
Actually it has and it historically does. That's why people do it. But this debate isn't really about restricting language, it's, deciding, who gets to own the definitions of words, the government, or the private sector.
This is my sig.
I'm usually quite the defender of the idea that the 50 states are the incubator of ideas for governing, each an experimental sandbox, the synthesis of which over time leads to good policy on a national level. However, I find it hilarious and stupid that we must endure presumptuous state governments attempting to regulate the internet, something that transcends borders. I look forward to a day when Congress of the Supreme Court sees fit to bar these petty potentates from imposing their will on the whole of the web-using world.
Ceci n'est pas un post.
A trademark is a sort of a definition of an invented word, administered today by the government.
Not exactly. The term "Windows" is trademarked, should Microsoft be the only entity to be able to purchase "windows?" of course not.
There is a real dividing line between corporation and state, and the irony here is that those who would argue that trademarks should be less powerful by definition argue that words should be auctioned, rather than licensed, and conversely, those who argue for strong government trademarks ultimately argue that the government should control more the meaning of words rather than the free market.
Neither of these arguments are correct.
Trademarks are names and logos under which businesses trade. The reason why they are protected is to protect the reputation of the institution that holds them. Believe it or not, there is "fair use" of trade marks. It is perfectly legal to use someone else's trademark if you using only enough of it to identify the business.
For instance. A car dealership named "Planet Subaru" has the trademark "Planet Subaru." As a dissatisfied customer, I can create a website named "www.planetsubarusucks.com." I can even use the trademarked name "Planet Subaru" on this site as long as there is no confusion that I am associated with them, only as much of the trademark as necessary to identify the business, and that I do not intend to trade on their mark.
It is perfectly legitimate for a ford dealer to buy "toyota" to get business from a competitor. Trademarks are not for censorship.
...that leftist nanny state liberals and right-wing fundamentalist bible-thumpers won't try and ban?
"A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers." Hayek
They're not exactly known for their progressive views on technology
You mean, like, when the mormons invented WordPerfect, one of the first great Word Processors, or pioneered networking with Novell, the first great networking company?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Ashton_(executive)
http://www.mormonwiki.com/Ray_Noorda
This is my sig.
This is more on par with what should be happening:
As I have explained elsewhere, policy-makers should be helping consumers get relevant content, not enacting laws to take it away from them.
The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments. - Nietzche
You forgot to mention SCO! The people from which Unix was pirated to form Linux! Where would tech be today without great Utahnian innovators like Darl McBride and Blake Stowell?
Or at least I was told that it's no longer appropriate to refer to Catholics as Papists. :(
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
At least they aren't muslims!
This is my sig.
You must live in a weird location if Jew-bashing, for example, is socially acceptable. In some countries, it's not even legal!
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
At least they aren't muslims!
Yeah, because the the Qur'an (first published ca. 610AD) emphasizes the use of empirical observation and reason, and had technology and building know-how far ahead of its time. Thank Allah they didn't continue that tradition.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
OT but this bill is boring me to tears. Anyone got any theories on what's going to happen to Roman Grant? I think he's going back to jail after last week's escapade. Margie is having her epiphany that being a blond whore is no good, but she's hot as a brunette or blond either way, and Nicolette is doing the exact opposite, she will become a big whore.
Utah is one of the best run states in the country, from an egovernment and general management perspective.
At least, that's according to the Pew Center on the States. Compare states' report cards with that linked page.
But yeah, the keyword legislation is stupid.
Boom Shanka
Yeah, because the the Qur'an (first published ca. 610AD) emphasizes the use of empirical observation and reason, and had technology and building know-how far ahead of its time
Ok, so now you are bashing mormons by sticking up for the muslims. My oh my. But let's do some basic math.. you can celebrate a bunch of muslims that have been dead for, let's see, um, 2009 - 610 = 1399 years, whose best claim to fame is stealing a bunch of math from India. Or, you can celebrate some fairly clever people that invented modern networking and word processing.
Face it, you just don't like Christians, and the thing is, you can't even admit to yourself that Christians have done some pretty smart stuff, IN THE NAME OF THEIR GOD.
Sorry, but scientifically speaking, having a god does not preclude you from making advancements in technology. In fact, it might even motivate them.
This is my sig.
At least they aren't muslims!
Yeah, because the the Qur'an (first published ca. 610AD) emphasizes the use of empirical observation and reason, and had technology and building know-how far ahead of its time.
Very true. How far would computing have gotten with 1's but no 0's?
Thank Allah they didn't continue that tradition.
Also true. Too bad the idiot Christian world had to pick up where they went off.
That is funny, in Finnish medical drug law there's pretty much an opposite clause: When a patient is buying a prescribed drug, brand A, the drug store must offer a cheaper substitute drug, brand B, if such exists.
I'm no fan of Mormonism, or Catholicism or Islam for that matter, all of which are backwards, right-wing religions, so I agree with most of your post.
But I don't really see what this particular dispute over trademarks has to do with Mormonism. Whether non-owners of a trademark paying for search results under those terms as keywords is, or ought to be, a violation of trademark law has been argued over in a number of states, and I don't see particularly clear religious faultlines in that debate. If supporting that position is somehow related to Mormonism, does that mean that eBay is run by Mormons?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Hello? It was a compliment . Seriously... Can't even compliment muslims anymore without some christian screaming "help, help, I'm being oppressed!" Please take your irrational key-stabbing somewhere else.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
emphasizes the use of empirical observation
About Jews and Christians:
"Seize them and slay them wherever you find them: and in any case take no friends or helpers from their ranks." Sura 4:89
THL phish sticks
Also true. Too bad the idiot Christian world had to pick up where they went off.
Credit where credit is due: there was a long period of taking people's heads off and burning them at the stake before they picked up on the use of empirical observation and reason. Even today, empirical observation and reason is met with healthy skepticism -- I mean, compared to Jesus, what has empiricism ever done for YOU? /sarcasm
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Hello? It was a compliment... Seriously... Can't even compliment muslims anymore without some christian screaming "help, help, I'm being oppressed!" Please take your irrational key-stabbing somewhere else.
How could I be oppressed by Islam? In fact, how could any man EVER be oppressed by Islam?
Islam is a much better deal for men than Christianity is, particularly American christianity. Hell, in Islam, men get to have all the money, don't have to share the road with women, get all the power, dominate the home completely, and have women like they are interchangable parts.
Christ, why are we fighting these people!
Point is: Me thinks you, as a woman, would have an interest in seeing Americans not wanting to adopt muslim culture so much.
This is my sig.
I think that people are panicking over nothing here. It's just another legislation that is required to [restricted] the internet function optimally. In time, we'll be able to overcome this new [restricted] and grow to embrace [restricted] [restricted] and [restricted]. Furthermore, [restricted] [restricted] so [restricted] and [restricted] [restricted] [restricted] bikini zombies.
Doesn't internet advertising fall under the category of 'interstate commerce' which only the Federal government can regulate?
"But I don't really see what this particular dispute over trademarks has to do with Mormonism. "
The dispute itself doesn't. The dispute's debate floor, in the Mormon capitol of the world, is where the correlation is drawn.
For example, they got the LDS leadership's advice before introducing a bill to reform alcohol laws. Everything short of requiring baptism to be in the senate here :)
There's a 68.71% chance you're right.
The intent of the law seems to be to prevent me from being bombarded with results that are irrelevant or contrary to what I'm searching for. Note that it appears that under this law you can still do things like buy the "Ford Focus" keyword and direct it to your fordfocussucks.com page (so long as the page is actually about the Focus, and not something else). You could not, on the other hand, but "Ford Focus" and use it to direct me to a page that sells cruise vacations.
Meh. Personally I suspect that the internet would be less annoying if this law were implemented.
But most Mormons do. They are a fairly conservative bunch on the whole. The story is about a conservative, Republican, Mormon dominated legislature trying to get the internet to play by corporate rules. The "mormon" tag is just as appropriate as a "republican" or "conservative" or "corporations" tag on the story.
Meh. Speaking as a Mormon who's lived a good chunk of his life in Utah, I'd say that while you're correct, any of the tags you mention are problematic. The source of this kind of mistake isn't really any one of those influences, it's an intersection of all of them. The Utah Republican party, particularly on certain regional levels, has its own special brand of cultural crazy that's a product of religiosity applied to conservative "philosophy" mixed in with some provincialism and mercantilism.
And I think the combination deserves no small measure of criticism. The problem comes when in examinining the intersection, someone decides that each of the influences alone is worthy of the same level of blame of all of them. Or just picks their favorite influence to axe-grind against.
People can legitimately object to stereotypes and prejudices. But sometimes those stereotypes are things that are legitimately true and that need to be said, even if they do offend.
The problem tends to be that the stereotypes tend to be caricatures that offer no subtle or genuine understanding of what's going on.
For example:
Tell that to the people living in Utah, or Saudi Arabia, or Italy, who have to put up with prohibitions imposed on them in the name of the silent religious majority.
Yeah, the unavailability of tea and coffee is a real bitch in Utah.
Tweet, tweet.
"How could I be oppressed by Islam? In fact, how could any man EVER be oppressed by Islam?"
If you are being sarcastic, you need to state so explictly.
If not, you need to educate yourself. This is simple, just Google the words "Jizya" and "Dhimmi". It will only take a few seconds, from there you should figure out pretty quickly - why we need to fight these people.
They declared war on us, we did nothing to provoke them. Ever wonder which modern religion still practices slavery?
having a god does not preclude you from making advancements in technology. In fact, it might even motivate them.
But handing people a complete package of religion, culture, and government that doesn't demand any advancement and doesn't allow dissent against anything dictated by that package will certainly impede progress.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
That's not a woman, dude.
YHBT.
YHL.
HAND.
we did nothing to provoke them
Yep, vacuums sure are powerful things. Just check the one between your ears.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
could be determined as hate speech. You made an unplausible association: that the Mormon Church is the Scientology of Early America. Not only is that an unfair comparison, but you're also seeking to link the poor reputation that Scientology has to the Mormon church in the minds of your readers. You're essentially slandering the Church's reputation and seeking to give people a negative connotation of it. Yes, you are free to speak your opinion about the church. Yes, Joseph Smith can be paralleled to L. Ron Hubbard because there is reasonable assumption that he created the Book of Mormon. There is verifiable truth in this statement. It does not entitle you to make a broad comparison since you're not specifically referencing Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard. Both churches were started by their respective founders, but they have grown and evolved independent of those founders. However, when invoking Freedom of Speech it is expected that you reveal who you are when you speak your opinion and take the consequences of such. If you're willing to say it, then you should be willing to take it. Posting your opinion as an AC and attempting to push this across, and then claiming the 'victim' defense as justification to me says that this WAS intended as a subtle form of hate speech. You are right in saying that you have a right to post anonymously. Posting subtle negative attacks anonymously erodes this right. So if you really believe it, then step up, come out, and say it. Otherwise, shut up.
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
Anonymous Coward has a point. Mod him up!
Is it always bigotry if someone is intolerant of a religion? What if there's an article about suicide cults, and I tag it 'heavensgate'? Bigotry? What if there's an article about female circumcision, and I tag it 'islam'? I'm just curious as to where the line is drawn. Personally, I think religion has unfairly worked itself into a position where to criticize it is seen as bigotry tantamount to racism, which is absurd.
You shouldn't take phrases like "Arabic numerals" at face value. It can make you look really stupid.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
But handing people a complete package of religion, culture, and government that doesn't demand any advancement and doesn't allow dissent against anything dictated by that package will certainly impede progress
Yes, it certainly does. But you don't need a God to achieve that level of stupidity.
This is my sig.
Of course, they often ignore that advise. Did you know that Utah was the deciding vote to repel the prohibition despite the fact that LDS leaders were in favor of prohibition?
At first glance, I thought it was "Utah Trying to Restrict Keyboard Advertising", and I was thinking, "Well it's about time someone did something about self-advertising keyboards!"welcome datacomp
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
Very true. How far would computing have gotten with 1's but no 0's?
Seems to work ok in Washington DC these days!
This is my sig.
If not, you need to educate yourself. This is simple, just Google the words "Jizya" and "Dhimmi"....we need to fight these people.
Before my fellow Republicans get too wrapped up in the Holy War, check this out... the total tax bill on corporate profits in the UAE, or United Arab Emirates, is 14%. This is compared to 40% for the USA.
http://www.doingbusiness.org/ExploreTopics/PayingTaxes/?direction=Asc&sort=7
Notice too, that the USA only has a 2% lower tax rate than Iran, and that's before Obama / Pelosi tax increases kick in.
So... I mean, I guess you have to decide... are you a Republican, or not? If you are a genuine anti-tax Republican, Shariah is a lot more appealing than liberalism, for sure.
I mean, for a tax cut of 1/3 of what I'm paying now, I don't necessarily want to rule out growing a beard and facing Mecca. Beats the shit out of worshipping every damned cricket and insect that the liberals would have us do.
This is my sig.
Just remember, under Islamic law, taxes to aid the poor are VOLUNTARY. There are no "entitlements" in Shariah.
Let's see, 14% tax rates in the UAE, versus 40% in the USA... yeah, I know that Islam's got some tough pills to swallow, but contemplate what you would do with 2/3 less in taxes. Unlike in America, where liberals bitch until you will pay the poor -everything- you make, under the law set down by the Prophet, paying the poor is VOLUNTARY and at most 1/40th of your income. El Propheto was many things, but he was, after all, a businessman first.
This is my sig.
As much as I hate posting as an anonymous coward here on Slashdot I semi-refuse(read; not gonna be arsed six ways from Tuesday at 12 AM in the morning) I feel it's kind of a national right for me to say this considering it's my home state:
I leave for two minutes and your doing what now Utah?
(Which was, oddly enough, my first reaction upon seeing this.)
Who modded this funny?
If you can read this, it means that I bothered to log in.
No you don't, but that doesn't stop the muslims, christians, or jews.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
You shouldn't take phrases like "Arabic numerals" at face value. It can make you look really stupid.
oooo, nifty. i didn't realize the arabs got them from the indians. thanks for the link.
though i'd point out that the same link credits two Arab philosophers, Al-Kindi and Al-Khwarizmi, with principle responsibility for diffusing those indian numerals into the west. which is likely why we refer to them as arabic numerals, and not hindu numerals.
To AC #27080663: you state "Except that Mormonism is the Scientology of early America"
By early America, you're talking about 1776 and that era?
But let's got back your statement about bashing a religion not being bigotry. Here's the definition of bigotry:
BIGOTRY
Pronunciation [big-uh-tree] -noun, plural -ries. 1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own. 2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.
Synonyms:
1. narrow-mindedness, bias, discrimination.
So yeah, you're A bigot, and uninformed, and a lot of other negative things that you demonstrate by your asinine statements.
You talk about people at the top of the Mormon church profiting. That is a very funny statement since the LDS church is an unpaid ministry, volunteers, etc. And those at "the top"? All of them gave up successful careers or successful companies to work more than full time hours with little time off in service to other people.
You have it backwards. And your statements about God and Christ show that you don't even know about Christianity.
So... let's sum your post up: Fail.
But you did succeed at being an Anon Coward.
That you did.
Maybe the second m was just a typo? ;-)
Good ole google has bene helping out in this department too. http://db.tidbits.com/article/8272
Ridiculous...
I live in the USA, where if someone says something that is not fatuously flattering to your pet cause, it is outrageously insulting to it.
Edith Keeler Must Die
Is "copyrighted trademarks" a legally meaningful term?
But, actually, the argument that Mormons can't be considered Christian may, indeed, derive from the same sort of motivations that induce some people to want to protect indirect use of their trademarks.
Which, if we assume that such use should usually not be protectable, would seem a little ironic, if a number of prominent "Mormon" politicians might be support this kind of legislation.