Trademark is Not Copyright

		Print
		Email weblog link
		Discuss
		Blog this

Richard Koman
Jun. 03, 2003 10:14 AM
Permalink

URL: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-scotus3jun03,1,2585043...

California courts had said yes, that consumers have a right to know the "origins of goods" -- and awarded ALL of Dastar's profits to Fox. Consider: Fox was awarded $1.5 million based on violation of nonexistent property rights: no one disputes that the original film is in the public domain.

Enter Justice Scalia and the Supreme Court, ruling 8-0 that there is a clear distinction between copyright and trademark, and that trademark exists to protect consumers from being tricked into thinking that Company A's product is really Company B's. (That is, Company A can't market a cheap, shoddy watch called Rolex, because the original Rolex Co. holds a trademark on that name.)

Trademark is NOT, the court argued, for the benefit of companies trying to stop competitors from selling competing products. Since no consumers are buying "Campaigns in Europe" thinking that are buying "Crusade in Europe," there is no trademark case, according to the courts.

"Once the patent or copyright monopoly has expired, the public may use the invention or work at will and without attribution," Scalia said.

Richard Koman is a freelancer writer and editor based in Sonoma County, California. He works on SiliconValleyWatcher, ZDNet blogs, and is a regular contributor to the O'Reilly Network.

were the supremes right?
You must be logged in to the O'Reilly Network to post a comment.

Showing messages 1 through 3 of 3.

• but attribution is a moral obligation
  2003-06-04 17:27:59  Lucas Gonze [Reply | View]
  
  
  I agree that the Supremes did the right thing, but don't think that Dastar did. You have a moral obligation to give credit where it's due.
  
  
• but attribution is a moral obligation
  2003-06-04 17:35:08  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Hey Lucas!
  
  I agree, but the operative word here is "moral." It would have been nice of them to give reference to the earlier work, but the point is that copyright, not trademark, provides such protection. In any case "give them all your profits because you neglected to provide attribution" is extremely harsh when the work in question is out of copyright.
  
  - richard
• but attribution is a moral obligation
  2003-06-04 22:00:05  Lucas Gonze [Reply | View]
  
  
  No doubt the "give them all your profits because you neglected to provide attribution" is just scummy. These guys have balls of steel. Still, I think that hackers have the moral high ground on attribution (e.g. the taboo against code forks) and should push it any chance we get.
  
  
  
  
  

---

Showing messages 1 through 3 of 3.

Return to weblogs.oreilly.com.