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 In 2007, Utah tried to regulate competitive keyword advertising; after a firestorm of protests, Utah repealed the law in 2008.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.
It seems Utah merely wants to prevent advertisers from getting married to too many keywords.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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?