Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chiaroscuro23" data-source="post: 3478695" data-attributes="member: 15371">This is generally correct, though it's worth noting that it's very, very hard to lose a trademark. Most folks don't even know that aspirin didn't used to be generic, and both Xerox and Kleenex are still with us. I would bet most people couldn't even tell you the generic term for Pop Tarts (possibly because the off-brands are terrible. Man, I never buy name-brand groceries except pop tarts, because the competition is chalky and awful.)But this I don't believe for a second. Content owners routinely claim that they are required by law to defend their rights. They do it in all sorts of areas that are not in fact required (and again, losing a TM by not defending it is relatively difficult. It requires significant abdication of control, not just turning a blind eye to some noncommercial websites, as you note.) When content owners seek to expand their rights beyond what the law guarantees them while simultaneously trying to deflect customer anger to a third party (the law) I don't believe for a second that they've made an honest mistake that just happens to be plainly false and quite beneficial to them. Add to this the strategy of FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) that the uncertainty of IP law engenders and they try to expand their rights far beyond what the law actually grants.People make lots of innocent mistakes about the law (especially about IP law online, where misinformation is rampant), but I refuse to believe that sophisticated parties with the benefit of counsel just happened to mistakenly interpret the law in a way that enables them to shirt customer complaints to an outside force.Also, the death of wargaming article people have mentioned is A Farewell to Hexes by Greg Costikyan, once a very prominent name in this hobby, and an excellent writer to boot. <a href="http://www.costik.com/spisins.html" target="_blank">http://www.costik.com/spisins.html</a></blockquote>

Verification