[Foundation-l] Trademarks

[Anthony]

On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 2:56 PM, Mike Godwin <mgodwin at wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Anthony writes:
>
> >> I'm trying to say that striking a humane balance between the
> >> requirements of trademark maintenance and the interests of freedom of
> >> speech is something I try to do, pretty much on a daily basis.
> >
> > How are the two in conflict?
>
> I had thought this was self-evident, but it seems clear that trademark
> law can be understood as a restriction on the kind of speech one can
> engage in, especially in a commercial context.


I guess what I didn't understand was that you were using the term "freedom
of speech" to mean an absolute bar on the restriction of speech.

I don't regard the two
> as "in conflict," but there is clearly a tension between trademark law
> and freedom of speech, just as there is a tension between copyright
> law and freedom of speech.


Would you say there is clearly a tension between fraud law (or perjury law)
and freedom of speech?  The way I understand it, rights cannot be in
conflict (or tension), and any seeming conflicts (or tensions) between your
rights and the rights of another are simply a misunderstanding of one or the
other right.

But I'll have to read up on your understanding of the tension between
copyright law and freedom of speech.  I'm pretty sure there's enough primary
source material for me to gather that information without having to have you
waste your time explaining it.  Of course, I'd prefer that we start a
philosophy-l list and move this discussion over there.  :)

> This perception comes not from this particular thread, but from my
> > reading
> > of other threads which you've participated in (including at least
> > one that I
> > was involved in).  It's not something which I care to argue with you
> > about,
> > and certainly not on this mailing list, although I will point out that
> > Thomas stated that "I've noticed that tendency as well", just in
> > case you're
> > truly unaware that some people perceive this about you.
>
> I'm aware, of course, that false or distorted memes may propagate from
> mind to mind, so it is no surprise that the same meme instantiated
> itself in yours and Thomas's mind.  It wouldn't surprise me if you
> both happened to suffer from a rhinovirus at the same time, either.


I won't speak for Thomas, but I've noticed this independently of anyone
having told me about it.


> (For reference, see <
> http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.10/godwin.if_pr.html
>  >.)  I've noticed, however, that the incidence of the meme about my
> purported invocation of my authority is lower in populations that
> actually do assume good faith, which provides a kind of partial
> immunity to certain kinds of memetic viruses.


Wow, I'd say the exact opposite is true.  I'd say the meme of assuming good
faith, especially as it has mutated to be used quite commonly by Wikipedians
(to discourage criticism), is a meme which promotes other memetic viruses,
not one which inoculates against them.  (I'd also point to
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1510/is_/ai_6203733 instead of that
Wired article that you provided.)

Or to put it more briefly, if you're already predisposed to assume I
> think of you as "little people" or that I expect what I write to be
> "accepted without question," there's probably nothing I can say that
> will be interpreted any other way.


Well, like I said, not something I'm interested in arguing with you about.
It's not my problem, it's your problem.