A few years back an anti-smoking organization had a campaign in the Stockholm underground (and maybe elsewhere) where they put the familiar "Welcome to Marlboro Country" line over a picture of a graveyard. That was perfectly legal since they were not trying to sell cigarettes (or clothes). The big bad tobacco company however changed advertisement bureau after that. How's that for lack of humour?
Furthermore, a trademark is only protected in the domain where it is active. You could probably sell candy named "Marlboro" (or cigarettes called "Pez") without worry.
you will not find even one law enforcement agency that will tell you that they were not able to convict someone of a crime because that person was using encryption to protect his computer files
Well, a few weeks back there was a story in Swedish newspapers about someone convicted for economical crimes. His computer contained encrypted files that the attorneys suspected contained further incriminating evidence (from the file names etc) but as they were unable to decrypt the documents he got the computer back and could safely destroy all evidence (if that was what it was).
Slashdot Mirror
A few years back an anti-smoking organization had a campaign in the Stockholm underground (and maybe elsewhere) where they put the familiar "Welcome to Marlboro Country" line over a picture of a graveyard. That was perfectly legal since they were not trying to sell cigarettes (or clothes). The big bad tobacco company however changed advertisement bureau after that. How's that for lack of humour?
Furthermore, a trademark is only protected in the domain where it is active. You could probably sell candy named "Marlboro" (or cigarettes called "Pez") without worry.
you will not find even one law enforcement agency that will tell you that they were not able to convict someone of a crime because that person was using encryption to protect his computer files
Well, a few weeks back there was a story in Swedish newspapers about someone convicted for economical crimes. His computer contained encrypted files that the attorneys suspected contained further incriminating evidence (from the file names etc) but as they were unable to decrypt the documents he got the computer back and could safely destroy all evidence (if that was what it was).