Slashdot Mirror
How I Got Fired From the Job I Invented
New submitter frost_knight writes "Travel blogger Turner Barr discovered that his entire brand, image, and web personality has been hijacked by a multi-billion dollar company for use in a marketing campaign. 'The video for their marketing campaign was particularly creepy for me, as even my age and personality didn’t escape the level of detail spent on creating this doppelganger (they used a paid actor of course). ... I’m no longer even the first thing that comes up when you Google my brand name. I’ve turned down work opportunities and put on hold any future travel job plans to deal with lawyers, long distance phone calls, corporate executives and other such nonsense — all along feeling misled and patronized. This situation has been extremely confusing for not only myself, but also for participants in company’s marketing campaign who message me thinking that I am am part of the company.'"
Who are intellecutal property laws protecting again. Once again, they always protect those with enough lawyers to make them work.
This adecco page has twitter feed deal at the bottom and it's a riot to read right now. Apparently they haven't caught on that this story is getting a lot of attention yet.
https://www.adeccowaytowork.com/en/career-center
I'm gonna guess clicking through on the facebook deal next to it would lead to similar stuff.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
They have money. You don't. End or story. That's all you need to know.
Who are intellecutal property laws protecting again. Once again, they always protect those with enough lawyers to make them work.
Of course the laws protect those who worked hard to make the laws (the layers). If they didn't, it wouldn't be fair.
George "I guarantee it" Zimmer, is that you?
I was so ready to side with Adecco on this. It's really not a very original twist on 'Around the world in 80 days', and it's really just a limited time use by them. Then I saw they've applied a TM to the term. They made his whole point for him.
"Don't you know you're going to shock the monkey?"- Peter Gabriel
It is only fair. If the citizens cared about their rights, they would hire lobbyists.
If you don't trademark then someone else will.
Why is anyone surprised? Adecco's entire business model is profiting off the labor of others.
How was he fired exactly? I totally get that he got screwed and all, but I don't see how this led to a firing in any stretch of the imagination.
I would send anyone to addeco, when I had a brief period of unemployment in 2011 I went to addeco, dream jobs? Hell you are lucky if they can find you anything even if your sitting in their office all day, saying I will do any work as long as its not against the law!
Is this just a knee-jerk, canned argument that gets posted by a bot when this topic comes up? I noticed the "authentic" spelling error.
What IP was violated? Trademark, copyright, or patent? In which jurisdiction did this white male backpacker register?
Nah, let's trot out the old tired meme again. Heck, it always works!
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Willful copyright infringement for commercial gain is a criminal offense under 17 U.S.C. Â 506 and 18 U.S.C. Â 2319
If the value of the reproduced works exceeds $2500 it is a felony.
So now we now that guy runs a travel blog as his hobby. What's that job he's talking about though?
His trademarks and copyrights were both infringed. If he engaged in commerce in the United States since 1976 he was required to register neither.
He might even have a case for unfair competition and illegal use of his likeness. Depends on how aggressive his attorneys are.
I started my own site called "Around the World in 79 Jobs"
Powerful incumbents against competition. Laws are working as intended.
Fuck'N A Dude! People make a lot of money writing shit like that!
The parent should leave technology immediately and start his own PR firm!
Robinson Sucroe:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robinson_Sucroe
Ironically the women that caused all that fraud died on an operation table in a plastic surgery (ego can kill).
They turned the display of the twitter feed off on their page; it was filled with comments saying they stole the work and they were unethical. But you can still enjoy the hate here: https://twitter.com/search?q=AdeccoUSA&src=typd
no comment
Big business and their Admiralty jurists have the temerity to decide who and what belongs to whom.
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
They are protecting Barr. Are you under the impression that just because Adecco typed TM they'll win?
It is pretty clear that Barr's trademark has priority under law and he's virtually guaranteed to win. It seems Barr and Adecco just haven't yet agreed on how much Adecco needs to pay Barr to make up for their employee's misbehavior .
Contest Rules: "Participants warrant and agree that their entry, including all content of the entry will at all times be (a) the original independent creation of the participant submitting it, (b) exclusively and solely owned by the participant (including the copyright therein), and (c) free of any claims, including copyright or trademark claims by other parties. Participants further warrant and agree that their entry, including all content of the entry, in whole or in part (a) does not and will not infringe any third party rights (including intellectual property rights or rights of privacy, publicity or confidentiality), (b) has been created by the participant and if the content features a person other than the participant, the person(s) featured in the content (and their parent/legal guardian if they are under the age of majority in their jurisdiction of residence) must have consented to their image being used in connection with this contest, and (c) is not unlawful, fraudulent, defamatory, obscene, profane, derogatory, pornographic, sexually inappropriate, politically incorrect, violent, abusive, insulting, scandalous, inflammatory, harassing, threatening, racist, ageist, sexist, objectionable with respect to religion, origin or gender, not suitable for children under 15, or otherwise unsuitable for publication or objectionable."
At https://www.adeccowaytowork.com/en/contact
For example:
You disgust me. I expect never to make use of your services, either looking for my next position, or when I am part of the hiring process where I work.
As an active web developer with a strong network built up over 15 years in the industry, I intend to make sure the details of your parasitic behaviour are shared as widely as possible. Everybody who works in the digital economy will see this as a crime that could have been perpetrated on themselves.
I will encourage everyone I can to see themselves as a potential victim of such cavalier behaviour and to boycott your services therefore. I know how many of my colleagues already despise the way big business flouts IP laws, whilst simultaneously using these same laws to crush players too small to afford protracted legal battles.
You are in a service industry and person you have just ripped off is the archetypal representative of your customer. I can only hope that the impact on your bottom line is what it deserves to be. I will do what I can to encourage everyone to make it so.
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/13/06/22/2316215/how-i-got-fired-from-the-job-i-invented
Yours sincerely,
[name redacted]
Incidently their twitter feed is interesting reading at the moment. As is their facebook page.
Never trust a man in a blue trench coat, Never drive a car when you're dead
You didn't cover your flank. You're brilliant and mobile, your adversaries aren't. Pop a Molly and think of something else - and next time, get a lawyer first. It's not like millions of others haven't been hosed by megacorps before. You should have expected this. Many of us have travelled this road.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Coke didn't invent soda, Slashdot didn't invent news aggregation and discussion.
What belongs to each of these companies is the NAMES they do business under
In order to know whether you're buying soda made by Coca-Cola or some other company, the law protects the Coke mark.
His mark is Around the World in 80 Jobs. It seems that employees of Arecco contacted Barr, thinking that he was part of the promotion. If their use of the Around the World in 80 Jobs mark confused their own employees, it could certainly confuse the public, making them think Barr was involved in the promotion.
Do on an anti-that company PR rampage. They certainly set themselves up for that! Tear them a new ass and if they have the balls to sue you for copyright infringement, you could probably beat them lawyerless it would be so much of a joke.
I agree, I've been robbed of my work.
Jules Verne
I just sent this email to Adecco from their contact us page. " Nice work Adecco - stealing someone else's work and ideas and claiming them as your own. Shame on you! Look on the web - The Striesland Effect is alive and well on Twitter, Facebook, Slashdot and others."
Fair is where the bus was headed when you went under it.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
https://www.facebook.com/AdeccoWayToWork
We have seen and heard your sincere concern about our recent youth employment initiative and take your feedback very seriously. We deeply regret if we hurt Turner Barr. This was never our intention when we set up our “Around the World in 80 Jobs” contest. We clearly see that Turner is an inspiration to many people. We feel there should be more of such initiatives that inspire people to live their dreams and achieve their ambitions. Unfortunately, we moved forward with a name and contest that clearly upset Turner and his community. We sincerely apologize for that mistake.
When Turner contacted us about his concern, and we understood the full situation, we immediately engaged with him to try to make things right. Unfortunately, we have been unable to find common ground so far.
Most of all, we are sorry that an initiative we truly care about – youth unemployment – has been negatively received.
Your Adecco Way to Work Team
Adecco has publicly admitted it was "a mistake" and they want to "make it right".
So at this point there's no question they were in the wrong. It's just a matter of figuring out what to do about it.
* had Adecco offered a settlement WITHOUT admitting they were wrong, that offer couldn't be used against them in court .
Here, they admitted it was a mistake to use that name, and that they need to make it right.
Assuming it's not too late for that.
Google the tort of passing off. It is not necessary for a trademark to be registered for it to be legally defendable.
Their claims that "an intern did this" on their twitter feed are a laughable, bald-faced lie.
No intern would be able to independently put together a marketing campaign like that, complete with video.
You're obviously no fool, and you know this is the best thing that's ever happened to your blog. Youtube videos that you posted a mere two months ago are showing less than 100 views, but your most recent one where you discuss this issue has 23,000 views. I understand why you're acting so glum -- it should sweeten the "pain and suffering" damages you'll eventually get -- but not all of us are fooled by the act.
I'm not saying I blame you a bit, just that I'm not buying the "woe is me" schtick.
He is required to register a trademark. Not a copyright.
But, if he relies on the at-large copyright, it's not as strong as if he actually registers through the Copyright Office.
Reeses
Adecco has publicly admitted it was "a mistake" and they want to "make it right".
So why is "Around the World in 80 Jobs" still plastered all over the Adecco website? Step one of "make it right" is to cease infringing.
... unless the "make it right" was a public outcry publicity stunt by Barr and Adecco.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Isn't this is a felony?
... LOIC!!!!!
Adecco makes a majority of its money through staffing agencies it owns. There's nothing wrong with staffing agencies per se, but Adecco's outright abuse employment law in how theirs are operated. As an example, someone I know recently applied to a legal job at a law firm. They got through the interview process and were waiting for confirmation of when to start. Instead they got a call telling them the firm could not hire them because the person had worked for an Adecco owned entity within the past year, and they had an agreement not to hire people Adecco's entity had staffed within the past year. The entity is also well known for requiring more than 40 hours a week to be worked without overtime pay via exploiting a person's title of "contractor". So why is it surprising that a company that behaves like people are their property would treat the guy in the story any differently?
"Fair is where the bus was headed when you went under it."
No, fair is where you were walking to when the bus heading for crooked ran over you!
celle
Maybe it's all part of the (Adecco) promotion. Way too much artificial drama days .
These days you only have the rights that you can afford to defend.
The layers do get compensation of a sort as food and shelter but the living conditions are horrid and the retirement plan sucks.
He is not required to register a trademark. The only requirement is that he use it in commerce. Registered trademarks have stronger protections, but an unregistered trademark is still protected.
Dead since a long time, copyright expired, already got all the money he deserved. Great author btw.
Wouldn't this be a good use for Kickstarter? Raise funds for fighting something like this to conclusion in order to set precedent. So Kickstarter is a way to get around traditional corporate funding. Maybe it can be a way to get around traditional corporate blackmail too!
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
Who are intellecutal property laws protecting again. Once again, they always protect those with enough lawyers to make them work.
Yes... and, without the law, those with enough money still beat people with less, too. Basically, it's always an advantage to have more money. The problem isn't money, it's the willingness to be an asshole to get it, and using it to hurt people in order to preserve and increase your power.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Maybe that's a good first step, maybe not.
Ending the contest would screw over the people already involved.
They've spoken to Barr and it's entirely possible he indicated he would rather then not shut it down at this point.
It's also possible that they're stupid.
If they hired an actor to that looks like Barr, it seems pretty deliberate. They can truthfully say it was a mistake as long as they don't say what they were mistaken about. Whether or not they say so publicly, they probably mean they made a mistake thinking they could get away with this, without anyone noticing and without Barr making a big enough fuss to fuck up their plans. Like I said, the act of trying to steal this guy's thing wasn't a mistake; as in, "oops we didn't know someone had this name and there was a guy who looked like our actor." That would be bullshit.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
Absolutely right! If you're lucky, you'll never have rights worth enough to pay a lawyer to sue you. My 70+ year old widowed mother is being sued by my money-crazy step-sister. There is zero merit to the case, but my poor mother has already had incurred over $200K in expenses, and they haven't even started the effort to go to trial. The judge couldn't throw out the case because the law says disputes of this type can only be decided at trial. The system is set up to take away your money and give it to lawyers, plain and simple. Anyone without enough money to play this game can be taken advantage of by any company that cares to, and the law is set up to benefit lawyers here as well.
There is a defense. If you're bright, and a fast learner, you can represent yourself, and hopefully not cock it up. It will take even more of your time than hiring lawyers, but the expenses will be tiny. Naturally, judges, who all happen to be lawyers, take a dim view of this approach. It's a good thing the people passing the laws that lawyers live by aren't lawyers themselves! ... Oh, wait!
Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell
They've spoken to Barr and it's entirely possible he indicated he would rather then not shut it down at this point.
If that were the case, he wouldn't be ranting about it on his blog, and we wouldn't have a story.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Sucks to be a layer. Good to be a cock.
Actually, the strength of a copyright has nothing to do with whether it is registered- once it's in a fixed format, it's as strong as it's going to get.
You may be thinking that you need a registration to maintain a civil claim of copyright infringement in the U.S. While true, you need not secure the registration until you actually sue, meaning he could send the paperwork off tomorrow and be in virtually the same position as if he had already registered the copyright.
In theory he can sue them under Common Law for 'passing off'. From what he describes it is an open shut case. The bad news is the justice system comes down to whoever has the deepest pockets wins. Unless he's got a lot of money to throw away on lawyers there is nothing he can do so using his free speech rights to tell people is a smart move.
He still needs to indicate that it's a trademark. And it needs to identify an actual product or service. As far as I can tell, he does neither.
...job security for lawayers. Stand back people! There's lawyering to do!!!
IF by seeing this fiasco you don't realize that corporate "persons" are psychopaths, I don't know what will do. I'm reading their disgraceful lawyered-up damage-control non-apologies and I wonder if it is possible for them to actually take reponsiblity and fix things the way it should be done. They might be unable to do so by good will because psychopaths don't recognize good from wrong. Money is the only think they care, so asking them gently about fixing it won't work. Big enough stick is the only thing that will work. Turning their ad campaign into a messy blow by flooding their twitter/facebook/whatever with comments about them being thieves etc. is the best one we have - and I'm delighted to see it in full force. Hurting corporation's bottom line is the only way to force it to behave properly.
Damnable thieving blackguard.
- Phileas Fogg
For fuck's sake, test your links not to post broken ones. Had to search it myself.
It's not even in public opposition stage yet - it was only filed and have not even passed preliminary examination. Please learn about trademark process before closing cases.
Same goes for copyright: Registered works enjoy greater protections than unregistered works, at least as far as compensation for copyright violations are concerned.
(Score:5, Ironic)
Nobodies Prefect
Tidbits for Techs Technology Blog
Blaggard or black-hearted
Well, when you sell your soul to the devil, you don't get to turn 65 and go, 'Um, oops. Do-over.'
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
You're an idiot. His income doesn't come from his youtube presence. It comes from his blog, dipshit. Something which is now in direct competition with the name of this contest, throwing off potential viewers and hitting his web stats.
He still needs to indicate that it's a trademark. And it needs to identify an actual product or service. As far as I can tell, he does neither.
the product and service is his .com website.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Maybe that's a good first step, maybe not.
Ending the contest would screw over the people already involved.
They've spoken to Barr and it's entirely possible he indicated he would rather then not shut it down at this point.
It's also possible that they're stupid.
it's Adecco. they're both stupid and evil.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
I don't know.. It seems to be a bit calculated and scripted to me. I mean, that "depression-beard" and those staged photos.. I bet they didn't come together "in the moment". There's some core of truth in there somewhere I'm sure, but the whole thing on top doesn't seem 100% genuine. I have a feeling most of this stems from working with his lawyer in preparation for a lawsuit. With that said, Adecco is a piece of crap unethical company. There was a social dumping scandal here in Norway a couple of years ago where they really showed their true colors. So I hope he gets them either way.
Get a life, drama queen.
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
How is this not identity theft?
Fare is what you should have paid to be in the bus instead of under it.
California has special IP laws to protect the "right of publicity." Try attorney Bela Lugosi.
Auew you do, if you were smart by then you move into politics.
we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
Take Apple for example... last September Apple trademarked the term "Startup" in many countries around the world ( after getting an initial trademark in Jamaica the year before to allow them to take advantage of some international trickery ). They're going to leave it for a while and then decide if they want to use it to abuse all those "Startup _City_" tech accelerators?
Would you mind running that thought by me again? So if I tell you I made a mistake without further specifying, I am not being truthful?
While we're on the general subject of mistakes, anyone who states they never made a mistake is a damn liar. There are worse things than owning up to a mistake.
Actually, there are those of who think the problem *IS* the power of money (and lack of it) in the legal system.
If that were the case, he wouldn't be ranting about it on his blog, and we wouldn't have a story.
Unless he's calculated that he can get more out of them if he turns the screws a bit.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
The layers of lawyers, you mean?
Try again.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Plutocrats' roadkill.
He might want to play along (without ever making a false statement), and start saying things like "Adecco should pay this guy off; this is starting to become a problem."
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
He has a brand??? What does he think it's worth???
I guess that's what happens when you steal another person's intellectual property for your own. 'Around the World in 80 Days' is far outside copyright laws, anyone expecting any kind of ownership is a hypocrite.
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
How about a word processor called Word Perfect?
In fact, neither Word nor Office are registered trademarks, for the reason the GP said - they are generic, what trademark law calls "merely descriptive".
Was that ever not the case?
Maybe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Have_Gun_%E2%80%93_Will_Travel#Victor_De_Costa:_a_previous_Paladin
Victor De Costa: a previous Paladin
In April 1974 a Portuguese cowboy from Rhode Island named Victor DeCosta won a federal court judgment in his second suit against CBS for trademark infringement, a decision supporting his claim that he had created both the Paladin character and some concepts seen in the series.[18] His cowboy image notably included the nickname "Paladin," a mustache, an all-black outfit including flat-top black hat, chess knight on the business card, and the motto "Have Gun – Will Travel". In their previous appeal, the defendants claimed it was "'coincidence' run riot," "more bizarre than most television serial installments."[19][20] During subsequent litigation, the "court found no basis for liability for common law service mark infringement or unfair competition and accordingly reversed.". After that, DeCosta applied for registration of his mark, and in 1975 the Patent and Trademark Office granted his application. Meanwhile CBS granted the syndicated broadcasting of the series throughout the United States to Viacom. DeCosta sued Viacom for trademark infringement, and after an appeal, in 1991 he was awarded $3.5 million.[21][22] The award was eventually denied in 1993,[23] and after the death of Victor DeCosta (1993) the litigation was continued by David DeCosta.[24]
Sony's word mark is Clarendon. Coby's is Bookman. There's a difference. The serif on the 'C' in Bookman is angled, while the same serif in Clarendon is vertical. Type COBY != SONY into Bookman and Clarendon to see the difference.
You must like lawyers. Even dream of being one.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
The judicial system in this country is completely broke. I know multiple people who have had issues with CPS (usually involving a kid falling and breaking a bone, parents take them to the emergancy room, CPS is called, takes kids away). Bail, lawyer fees, mandnitory parenting classes, and months without contact with your kids have to be gone through before your case even get the first hearing. Then, if you plead Not Guilty, its months before the trial actually starts.
Then the fun begins.
First, you better hope your lawyer, that you have already paid thousands to, actually cares about the case and actually believes you. Otherwise, midtrial, you fire your lawyer, get a new one, a whole new slew of legal fees, etc
Worst is, assuming you win, you are still stuck with legal fees equal to a student loan all the way up to a mortgage. And you don't get any of that back.
This isn't just issues with CPS. This is true for pretty much any criminal or civil case. Whether you are guilty or innocent, at fault or not, doesn't matter, you are still stuck with legal fees.
If you are lucky, if you win at the criminal level, you might be able to take the person to trial on a civil level and recoup some costs, but even that isn't very likely.
Another horrible example of this is red-light tickets. I have been issued two in my life, and in both instances, the "evidence" (ie pictures / video) clearly shows that no violation occured. However, at $35 for a court hearing, plus two days of missing work (to go down to the court and plea not guilty, than for the actuall court date), then the amount of money I loose missing work, its easier just to pay the $75 ticket.
Its a broken system. It needs to be completely overhauled.
We do, every few years, in a special process called a vote. Every geographic area gets it's own lobbyists to represent them in to the government. Problem is the damn politicians tend to forget who they work for...
most of this crap is created by lawyers, ("Never admit anything. We can find precedent or stall until they die.") and marketing and advertising teams (Mad Men. "We can spin ANYTHING."), both herds that need to be thinned drastically.
I thought it was binders full of lawyers.
Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
In a funny twist I have never heard of this guy nor his supposed thieves of personality. Perhaps this is a huge marketing campaign for himself?
Who are intellecutal property laws protecting again. Once again, they always protect those with enough lawyers to make them work.
Of course the laws protect those who worked hard to make the laws (the layers). If they didn't, it wouldn't be fair.
Neither lawyers nor layers make the laws. Lobbyists do, using the Congresspersons they've purchased with their hard-earned money.
TBH, i wholeheartedly detest the whole branding circus, whoever wants to take part in it. The idea that a silly word or phrase should be somebody's "property" is just not right and it is equally wrong when some blogger has it as when some multibillion dollar company has it.
But if you really think you want to "I own a brand" game, then why dont you play by the rules? And as far as I know (but I admit I do not know much because, see above, I detest that whole circus), the rule is that you legally register a brand and that registering a brand is one (of probably several) steps necessary to protect a brand. If you did it, you probably can defend it. If you did not, tough call, you lose because you did it wrong.
Investing in getting well known, famous, rich or whatever you desire by being known for your quality or originality instead of some silly "brand" may work better in your case.
It's lawyers all the way down.
There is a defense. If you're bright, and a fast learner, you can represent yourself, and hopefully not cock it up. It will take even more of your time than hiring lawyers, but the expenses will be tiny. Naturally, judges, who all happen to be lawyers, take a dim view of this approach. It's a good thing the people passing the laws that lawyers live by aren't lawyers themselves! ... Oh, wait!
Judges don't take a "dim view" so much as go out of their way to make sure pro pers understand what's going on. This does frequently involve advising them to get an attorney, but more often it involves giving them more chances than represented parties get to do things right. It's frankly tiresome for practicing attorneys on the other side, not because it means we can't trip them up but because it means slow going and higher fees for OUR OWN clients -- not to mention frequently having to respond to ridiculous arguments, and do so in a more meticulous and careful manner than we'd have to if it were an attorney on the other side. This is because no judge wants to deal with an accusation (made far too easily by people who don't understand the legal system) the he or she was unfair to a self-represented litigant. It's bad PR for the judiciary overall (and people are already far too willing to blame judges generally without understanding what their job actually is) and it could lead to reversals on appeal.
I know it's easy to hate lawyers because we're very expensive and, much of the time, you're only hiring a lawyer if something has gone wrong, or you're afraid of something going wrong. So there's already a negative association. But only a tiny fraction of lawyers are ACTUALLY unscrupulous. Views like the one expressed in your comment are under-informed and contribute to an overall toxic climate when it comes to legal work. Not to mention, it makes the judiciary an easy target for budget cuts, which, guess what, means that the only way to fund the judiciary is through increased filing costs, reduced services to the public, and the like. Guess who this helps? Hint: not the little guy who doesn't have the money to make up the difference himself.
If you are lucky, if you win at the criminal level, you might be able to take the person to trial on a civil level and recoup some costs, but even that isn't very likely.
Which person? The prosecutor? Highly unlikely; it's very rare that you can establish that a prosecutor charged you with improper motives.
You're actually more likely to be able to recover fees in a civil case (good thing, too, since you're only entitled to a free attorney in the criminal context). If someone sued you without reasonable cause, you can frequently sue them right back for malicious prosecution/abuse of process. Now, this is hardly a guarantee, because there's a pretty high standard for these types of causes of action -- but if someone was acting in a truly unreasonable manner, it's absolutely an option.
Another horrible example of this is red-light tickets. I have been issued two in my life, and in both instances, the "evidence" (ie pictures / video) clearly shows that no violation occured. However, at $35 for a court hearing, plus two days of missing work (to go down to the court and plea not guilty, than for the actuall court date), then the amount of money I loose missing work, its easier just to pay the $75 ticket.
Its a broken system. It needs to be completely overhauled.
A lot of states have found the traffic cams unconstitutional. Small comfort for you if you've had to go to the effort of fighting tickets, but it's at least worth noting that the law does change and respond to reasonable arguments. I know it's very easy to see all courts and all judges generally as part of the messed-up system that unfairly favors moneyed interests, but it's a massive oversimplification and often outright inaccurate. The court system is actually the only one of the three branches of government in which an individual citizen can actually still go and make a huge impact (either on his or her own individual life or on many others) without needing to rely on another person finding it politically expedient to listen to him or her.
So register a trademark yourself. You have an earlier priority date.
Domain Name: AROUNDTHEWORLDIN80JOBS.COM Created on: 23-Oct-11 Expires on: 23-Oct-15
Their priority date (for "Word Mark AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 JOBS") is December 21, 2012.
Because you used the "Domains by Proxy" service to hide the registration information for your domain, you may have trouble proving first use. Another disadvantage of those ownership-hiding services - when you need to prove ownership, you can't.
Most of the lobbyists are lawyers. Just saying. For that matter, lawyer is also the most common real-life profession for a congresscritter.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Only the owner of a registered copyright can sue for statutory damages.
I know it's easy to hate lawyers because we're very expensive and, much of the time, you're only hiring a lawyer if something has gone wrong, or you're afraid of something going wrong. So there's already a negative association. But only a tiny fraction of lawyers are ACTUALLY unscrupulous.
It's kinda hard to make this statement since, at face value, it should be apparent that lawyers are defending the wrong party more than half the time. After all, when two people disagree either one is wrong or both are wrong. And yes I know even criminals have rights, and if they didn't have a lawyers they'd be punished unfairly, which begs the question of why do we have a system that applies unfair punishments?
I understand your concerns but I still think the justice system is broken.
But... the future refused to change.
If you go to the store and buy Coca-Cola, do you not want to receive "the real thing", made by Coca-Cola company as opposed to some nasty tasting knock-off? How about if you buy a "Corvette"? Is it okay for me to sell you a knock off Corvette? That's why brands, trademarks, are protected, so you can know what you're buying.
The Swiss trademark--which they seem to be using as a basis for the US mark--can still be contested.
The irony of this page is palpable
https://www.adeccowaytowork.com/en/career-center/tools/181
If the bar associations actually punished malicious and unscrupulous lawyers, then you MIGHT have a valid argument. Even so, when the laws are written by the lawyers to the benefit of the lawyers I'd be dubious, but when unscruplous lawyers are given a free pass, there's no validity to the argument at all.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Nothing new here. Back when the Nissan car company was still called 'Datsun' a fellow named Uzi Nissan registered the domain nissan.com, ran his businees under that domain name for several years, even called his ISP that. Then the newly-renamed Nissan corporation sued him, and after forcing him to spend a huge pile of money on legal fees ended up with the domain. One of the first web commerce sites was a German artists' cooperative called Etoy, and they sold their members' work through the web site called etoys.com. Then Toys Are Us decided to get on the web, sued the co-op for 'cyber squatting', and ended up with the domain. Those of us who have been on the www for more than a decade have seen many of these games play out, and the result is always the same; deep pockets always win.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
I thought parasite was the most common real-life profession of congresscritters.
Sara
Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
The term "Intellectual Property", is considered misleading by many who advocate for electronic freedom. Please consider avoiding the term so as not to indirectly support the claims of those who want to restrict these freedoms.
Signatures are a waste of bandwi (buffering...)
Has this escaped your attention?
"Here are key action points to help you manage your internet reputation":
https://www.adeccowaytowork.com/en/career-center/tools/181
After all, when two people disagree either one is wrong or both are wrong.
I find that's rarely the case. Generally, they're both wrong. It's even possible for them to be both right. Your view of the world is way too black and white.
It is the nature of large bureaucracies to behave as an evil Frankenstein monster made up of the weakest attributes of many fine people. This is true also of large corporations. The only solution I've seen is strong leadership from the top. I know a number of lawyers, and I would say they are all fine people. However, as a group, the justice system they are part of take people for all they are worth. It's not any one lawyers fault... it's just the system that's in place. However, it's the system built by the monster made up of lawyers.
Take my mother's case. Her husband died leaving a long complicated trust written with many mistakes. His lawyer made two amendments over two decades, but never read the trust before writing the amendments. Naturally, there are huge errors and contradictions. Now, the lawyer screwed up, plain and simple. He even admits the trust has drafting mistakes, and has offered testimony clarifying what happened, and what my mother's husband's intent was. His firm and a lawyer they work with have made $200K so far defending my mother, and depositions for the trial haven't even started. No one in the legal profession expects my mother to loose the case, but they do expect her to loose $400K in the process, almost all of her savings. Everyone thinks it's terrible, even the lawyers charging all the money. My money-crazy step-sister managed to find a lawyer that respectable lawyers hate. He's not one of the upstanding ones. However, the dozen or so people being paid so far are good people, and they all hate to see my mother fleeced like this.
Are you really going to defend this system?
Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell
Just an idea: Create a cooperative entity with which real people (bloggers, posters, flcker users,etc.) can insure their possible copyright claims against larger entities. The cooperative entity can than represent them in cases of violation of that copyright using the sum of personal contributions. The fact that this entity has the financial power to go toe-to-toe with larger companies in individual cases will make them more warry of actuall trying to steal copyrighted materials.
I would even suggest the participants are contractually obliged not make public that they joined this cooperative entity. This makes free-riding for non participants easier, but it also prevents the participants being seen as a new collective copyright agency that needs to be dealt with. Furthermore it is much more fun and scarier for them if a company finds out too late they "f**ked with the wrong marine".
I can think of a couple of rules you would need to set up:
The fact that it is a cooperative entity makes that contributions collected in excess of what is needed can be given back to participants. You could also give out bonds (I would limit this to participants) when the entity needs extra money to pay for a specific copyright case.
The stuff you need is pretty easy:
Keep it clean and open, for instance by allowing the participants to review the cases brought fowared, unless you want it to turn into another incarnation of a copyright troll.
Ever notice how politicians are either lawyers themselves or come from a family background that are? It's not a coincidence.
Most of the lobbyists are lawyers.
Not quite. It's true that any lobbying organization that's remotely effective will have a team of lawyers, but it's not as though lawyering as a profession is what leads people to become lobbyists -- which is the implication it seems you're going for here.
It's kinda hard to make this statement since, at face value, it should be apparent that lawyers are defending the wrong party more than half the time.
Firstly, "wrong" and "right" aren't binaries like you seem to think. Secondly, even if they were, wouldn't it be exactly half? How on earth do you figure it's "more than half"? That's got to be one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read, the more I think about it.
After all, when two people disagree either one is wrong or both are wrong.
Well that's just silly. You mean you've never in your life been in a situation in which a misunderstanding arose through the fault of neither party? Or where two people were upset about something for different reasons, both of which were valid? The world is not as simple as you're assuming it is in this sentence. Truth is not a binary, and, just as important, it's fundamentally unprovable in technical terms. The best we can do is attempt to find the most likely and/or reasonable explanation of or for something, but we can never find "truth." At least not in the current state of human consciousness and understanding.
And yes I know even criminals have rights, and if they didn't have a lawyers they'd be punished unfairly, which begs the question of why do we have a system that applies unfair punishments?
It raises the question, it doesn't "beg" it. And I just gave you the answer: because perfect knowledge is impossible for humanity in its current state of evolution. Imperfection and inefficiency in the justice system, therefore, are features, not bugs.
I understand your concerns but I still think the justice system is broken.
Then no, you don't understand my "concerns." You're allowed to think whatever you like about the justice system, but your comments make it quite clear that you don't understand it.
If the bar associations actually punished malicious and unscrupulous lawyers, then you MIGHT have a valid argument.
And how much familiarity do you have with the operation of bar associations and the extent to which they supposedly do or don't punish malicious or unscrupulous lawyers? For that matter, how do you know if someone is being malicious or unscrupulous? Should every profession have a governing board that punishes malice and lack of scruples for their own sake? Usually, for most people, punishment is limited to cases in which wrong acts cause damage.
Even so, when the laws are written by the lawyers to the benefit of the lawyers
Which laws are written by lawyers to the benefit of lawyers? Do you have specific examples? Don't rely on your assumptions just because, from your vantage point, you see only the benefits to lawyers and none of the obligations that those supposed benefits entail.
I'd be dubious, but when unscruplous lawyers are given a free pass, there's no validity to the argument at all.
Again: examples? How are "unscrupulous lawyers ... given a free pass"? If you're speaking only of specific individuals, that's less a systemic problem as it pertains to lawyers generally and more as it pertains to powerful individuals regardless of profession.
Defend what system? You've given me a sad anecdote, which does not a "system" make. Doctors make mistakes, too; does that render the practice of medicine inherently suspect?
Nissan was always called Nissan in Japan, Datsun was used in North America.
She is either super-rich and $200k is small beans which is why she chose to spend that much, or else her lawyers are fleecing her and she should get new lawyers.
Or, the case actually has merit, in addition to involving a lot of money, and involves some sort of complicated contract and lots of relevant business paperwork that involves them both. Then you might actually be racking up that sort of legal bill.
$200k pre-trial for a suit between individuals is not even close to reasonable or typical.
If only Joseph Priestley patented soda.
I can see them passing the blame to an outsourced marketing company contracted to create and promote the competition.
Can't your brother just divorce this hag? She sounds like an absolute peach.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
My state passed a law last year deeming red light cameras illegal. Sadly, new cameras are still going up. Turns out that, if they had already bought the equipment, they are still allowed to put them up. But they are not allowed to do any maintanance or renew contracts. I am just glad they are coming down - not so much because of the two tickets I had, but because of safty issues. Try driving along on a highway at night, and suddenly you are blinded by a flash going off from a redlignt camera on the access road. I know many cities have talked about how the traffic light cameras help improve safty - but I wonder if any studies have been done on how many accidents they cause - either from people being blinded by flashes, speeding up to make it through the intersection in time, or slamming on their breaks to avoid getting ticketed (most intersections I have seen with the cameras, they shortened the length of the yellow light - which I think has also been deemed illegal)
True, there are secretaries and marketing and PR people in lobbying orgs who probably outnumber the lawyers, the leadership is almost always a herd of attorneys. They're the ones who have to write the laws their pet congresscritters vote on.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Unless they want to pay him for use of the idea/trademark and they're more willing to make a deal if they still get something out of the deal.
I've been following the SCO trial. There were, indeed, lawyers there who were acting properly as officers of the court. Nearly half of them.
Lawyers file frivolous lawsuits all the time. It's true that this is at the behest of clients, but the lawyers aren't punished.
The forms of the laws are such that nobody can understand them, even when covering simple matters. Supreme court judges who blatantly misinterpret the clear wording of the constitution are an egregious example. (Mind you, I don't believe that the constitution as stated would work in current society, but the proper answer is to amend it, not to lie about what it says. The justification for the feds controlling everything on the grounds of interstate commerce, for example, is one particular example that's barely even controversial. It doesn't say that the feds have ANY right to control intrastate commerce. But that's not how the lawyers have read it. Or the decison that most of the country lives in areas that count as not meriting civil rights, because they are too near the border (defined as within a couple of hundred miles of an international airport, port, or actual border). That's egregious, even though they rarely actually use those provisions (as far as I can tell, though given National Security Orders that prohibit speaking [a first amendment violation] one can't be sure).
ETC. There are so many cases I can't even begin to list them all. And almost all legislators are lawyers in good standing with the bar association, and, I believe, that ALL judges are lawyers. Which would be quite reasonable given that the laws are so written that nobody else can understand them (see legislators).
OTOH, I will agree that much of the main problem with the laws has other basis, like legislators voting for bills they haven't bothered to read that were written by corporations. But that appears to be to be a violation of their oath of office, and they remain in good standing with the bar association.
Sorry that most of the examples involve prominent and powerful people, but that's the nature of the ones that I notice. I'm sure not all despicable lawyers are prominent and powerful, but I don't tend to hear about those.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
I completely agree, and I've experienced the blinding flash myself and immediately noted, at the time, how dangerously distracting it was. Fortunately, my city (Los Angeles) has since taken down all of the red light cameras because they were losing a lot of money on them. I sincerely hope the rest of the country catches on soon. These things are unconstitutional, dangerous, and a massive waste of taxpayer money.
the leadership is almost always a herd of attorneys.
Serious question: how do you define "leadership" in this context, and how is the fact that some lobbying organizations' leadership are attorneys really relevant to the discussion anyway? For example, how does it make sense to talk about a lobbying organization like the NRA as though it's just a bunch of lawyers? Or NARAL? Or the American Legion? Whether or not the current president of the board of any of these types of organizations may or may not be a lawyer is fairly irrelevant to those organizations' existence and purpose. It seems to me that you're struggling to distinguish being a lawyer, which means possessing a certain skill set and having a license from a particular licensing organization, from being a sort of person. Even though I'm a lawyer, I have far less in common with another lawyer who may be on the board of a lobbying organization I find abhorrent than I do with my non-lawyer systems engineer husband.
I've been following the SCO trial. There were, indeed, lawyers there who were acting properly as officers of the court. Nearly half of them
I don't know what you're specifically referring to by "SCO trial" nor do I see what point you're trying to make. Surely you don't mean to suggest that, because you side with one party to a lawsuit, therefore the lawyers representing the other side are acting "improperly." If you take such a black-and-white, closed-minded view of the world, it's not the judicial system that is the problem.
Lawyers file frivolous lawsuits all the time.
"All the time." Really. I assume you have evidence of this, as well as sufficiently-detailed facts about each of the cases in question such as to justify your characterization of them as "frivolous," yes? I can tell you from actual first-hand experience that people use the term "frivolous" far too liberally. Usually what people mean when they say "frivolous" is that they personally disagree with the plaintiff's characterization of the facts as they understand them, which they've every right to do, but an under-informed individual's perspective about someone else's case does not demonstrate that case frivolous. Kind of the whole point of civil litigation is to give every interested side an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence in an effort to find the truth, or at least as close to it as it's possible to get.
It's true that this is at the behest of clients, but the lawyers aren't punished.
You're revealing your ignorance here. If a lawsuit is ACTUALLY frivolous, the lawyers themselves can be and indeed are often punished. Take a look at Rule 11 of the FRCP for just one example of rules holding lawyers responsible for actions they take on behalf of clients.
The forms of the laws are such that nobody can understand them, even when covering simple matters.
This is an exaggeration, both because for most laws it is most certainly not the case that "nobody" can understand them -- and in fact, it is often more likely the case that most people of reasonable education and intelligence can understand them with some time, work, and attention. It is certainly fair to say that many laws are more complicated than necessary, but it is hardly true of all laws.
Supreme court judges who blatantly misinterpret the clear wording of the constitution are an egregious example. (Mind you, I don't believe that the constitution as stated would work in current society, but the proper answer is to amend it, not to lie about what it says. The justification for the feds controlling everything on the grounds of interstate commerce, for example, is one particular example that's barely even controversial. It doesn't say that the feds have ANY right to control intrastate commerce. But that's not how the lawyers have read it.
And you're more qualified to interpret the constitution? You're touching on a disagreement about constitutional jurisprudence about which lawyers and judges disagree, often passionately. The short response is that you're entitled to have an opinion and to side with the lawyers and judges who take the quasi-textualist approach you seem to espouse here -- but you're no more qualified than anyone else (and, indeed, are actually most likely far less so) to adjudge everyone else to "blatantly misinterpret" the Constitution. Textual interpretation isn't mathematics. Unless you're god, you're in no position to decree your view of constitutional interpretation the only affirmatively "correct" one. Interpretation is rigorous, difficult work that relies on a lot of philosophical reflection. It simply isn't the kind of thing you can decree a clear "right" or "wrong" about as though it were pH paper or something. Anything in
http://nissan.com/ is not owned by the auto company.
Dickens had it pegged in Bleak House
Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company -- Mark Twain
The Twitter feed has gone but there is this page, called, Do you know your Digital Reputation - let Adecco coach you. [ironic or moronic - you decide] https://www.adeccowaytowork.com/en/career-center/tools/181