New Branding Policy

Weren't people up in arms before Madhu got involved? Then all she did was post a pretty well thought out answer. All she got for it was grief.

The question remains: What's the big deal about this? Why do we care? We can still do whatever we were doing before, unless what we were doing before was inappropriate, in which case we shouldn't have been doing it. Maybe LL can use this to crack down on those morons who go around calling themselves the "SL Sanctioned Security Force" or whatever SL cops call themselves these days. That would make the Grid (tm) a better place for me.

Not really, seemed more silly to me, but I found the post you mentioned to be quite condesending.

OK - I guess you and I read the posts differently. I didn't get that out of her post at all. But who knows - maybe it's a matter of not having enough coffee before I read it or something. It's tough to tell tone on the internet, so it's certainly possible that I misread it or that you read something into it that I glossed over. I'm notoriously bad for missing nuance. I've never gotten anything negative out of Madhu's posts before, so I guess I just ignored whatever you saw in it that upset you based on my impression of her from our other contacts.

Edit - I hope you don't find this post condescending, Damien - I respect your opinion. I just can't agree with it.

I liked Maddy's post, Trout.

Nobody's really addressed one of my real concerns, though: Why was the new branding policy made a specific item in the TOS? The TOS applies to in world activities, to the use of Our Host's product.

It has nothing to do with RL websites, or commerce, or competing products.

I agree that we *probably* have nothing to worry about, and can keep on mentioning PU and Our Hosts and their other TM-applied-for terms in chat and in IM. But I still get an uneasy feeling...WHY did Our Hosts add brand protection as a part of the loyalty oath you have to take to use the product? It seems to hint at least at the *possibility* of in world enforcement. If so, how much?

The problem I have with the policy is the same one I pretty much always have with LL...they dropped in our laps without warning, then basically ran away and hid. Instituting policy change is definitely NOT one of their strong suits.

I'm sure it will be applied to commercial ventures, which does seem to shoot their Lindens aren't money " theory a bit, if you ask me. It's also a good way to pave the way for the eventual Corporatizaion of SECOND LIFE *marcas registada*.

It was a fun bit to run with, but I don't believe there is any intention of infringing on "speech" in world. It's the usual LL CYA communicated in it's usual clumsy and badly planned form.

My guess is that they want to hold our accounts over our heads. Their TOS is their way of suspending or banning your account. Of course, they could just suspend or ban people for completely arbitrary reasons - it's their grid - but if we do something that they don't like with regards to an SL logo, and it doesn't rise to the level of them taking legal action, or it's one of those things that might not be enforceable anyway, then they can ban your account using the TOS without having to bother with suing you in real life. If you are tying your marketing to your Sl account and use of the SL logo, then their ban is a pretty effective way to screw up your little business model.

I have no intention not talking about SL, Linden Lab, or anything else to do with the grid. I'm not marketing anything, especially not anything using LL logos.

I'd like to trademark RL. Not the letters; actual "real life". Then everyone who is alive will have to write me a check. That's how it works, right?

Yeah, but they'd also come to you with their complaints. It would be a Customer Service System so Byzantine it would make The Lindens go "Oy Vey"

I've never seen anything like that in a company's TOS. (I even checked a few after reading...er, skimming LL's revised TOS.)

The following post makes some good points about the way LL handled it.
http://www.beatenetworks.com/blog/index.php?/archives/152-The-Logo-Debacle-Has-Linden-Lab-Reached-the-Tipping-Point.html

Precisely what happened with Blackboard's patent, followed by Blackboard's successful suit of Desire2Learn:
http://www.academiccommons.org/commons/announcement/us-patent-office-strikes-again-awards-broad-patent-to-blackboard

Nice link, Miles. This was one of the rare times I actually took the effort to copy and paste it, thanks to the busted forum code. Brand protection is a good thing, and the need to do so shows Second life is gaining standing. And it has done so due in large part to it's residents, Linden's Customers. And this policy, in the way it is described and announced has the appearance of, once again, showing no regard to those customers, giving us all the untrademarked Finger.

Yes, that's an example of when patents go very, very wrong. I have to wonder if these patent office staff ever get out of their offices and experience what's going on in the world. If they did, I have a strong suspicion they wouldn't make some of these mind-blowingly bad patent awards.

They spoke Yiddish in Byzantium?

Only on the Lower East Side

I'm sorry that anyone found my posts condescending.

I can't help but think about how I'd be lain into if I came in here spouting strong, sneering opinions about some technical computer issue that I didn't fully understand. Yet some people feel entirely comfortable doing just that when it comes to intellectual property.

I was reading a lot of snark and upset that seemed to me to be based in common misconceptions about trademarks - about what a trademark is and is not, what a registration application is and is not, and what rights registration confers and does not confer.

And so, just as I would expect to be corrected if I was voicing strong opinions based on assumptions that were technically wrong, I thought it would be helpful if I tried to clear up some of those misconceptions.

Unlike others, I have not made statements of the "Thank God I'm not a _______" or "It's all the ________'s fault" about anyone else's profession, but I've seen them made about mine, by people who apparently understand as little about what my profession is as I understand about how to write the software behind second life. I don't think I was being condescending in response to that.

I'm sorry that I wrote my posts in a way that could be interpreted as condescending. I'm sure I am guilty of being sanctimonious at times; it's a character flaw I do try to work on. Here, I was only trying to point out that some of the things people thought were the consequences of LL's trademark position actually were not so, without insulting and belittling others in the process. I'll note also that others have also posted helpful comments about trademarks in this thread, and I thank them for doing so.

You could maybe get the trademark, but I think you'd have to take out a patent on real life itself to establish your rights in it.

Tell me...did RL exist prior to yourself?

Come on, let's have a go at solipsism.

[EDIT: Oh, and *HUGS* Maddy.] Now I know TWO good attorneys.

Madhu, i think your post was informative and helpful. it's not your fault people are so sensitive and defensive. you have absolutely nothing to apologize for. but it just flatters your good character, so i'm glad you did anyway.

I understand from your post that you are alive. If that is the case and you are not an ALICE bot of some sort, then I don't have to answer your difficult question as long as you are out of compliance with the requirements of my trademark. Please remit $5.00 immediately for the use of real life. After receipt of your funds, I will happily answer your questions. In the alternative, please surrender your real life immediately. Should you choose this option, I will not need to answer your question.

Oh - and I still maintain that Madhu's answer was not snippy or condescending. I found it helpful.

Lindal - we have three attorneys here? Two good ones and one degenerate. Who is the third?

I guess I missed the post where there was something wrong with Madhu's answer.

I just couldn't see how LL could attempt to trademark "the Grid" didn't mean there was anything wrong with any of Madhu's posts.

After the first paragraph it was useful. Other than that it was just my opinion, even though there is much disagreement with me. Guess its my turn to be on the opposing side.

Well, again, I'm sorry - I was just bristling at the "lawyers are teh evilz" sentiment when it seemed to be based on false premises. Otherwise - it's all cool. Can we still be in the same clique Damien?

And thanks for the nice words everyone.

If there was a clique I'm sure that would be allowed.

That hasn't changed, they are evil. But not as evil as used car salesmen.

I will have to send this to the clique review board,you do know it is against our TOS to disagree with us right? Sorry Damien,you were a good little clique member until this.



/me sighs in disappointment

/me slinks back to my dungeon

I'm sorry the way I understood it is we can not use the brand on anything we sell without permission, so creating a TShirt with the brand logo is not allowed.. Or using the logo name or whatever in printed material... WHICH I understand 100%.
That would be like using the NIKE name on a pair of sneakers you copied the swoosh from to sell in second life... or coco chanel.. and I KNOW people rip that off. I see ALOT of peopl eselling stuff with designer brand fabric! No not authorized sellers either..

I did not see anywhere that it said you can not use the company name, or second life URL in chat..

maybe I am wrong, but.. I'm sorry if that was the case then there would be no one left on second life because.. well just because.

This is a good thing, maybe they will protect the designers in SL more as well huh? The skin makers are ripped off all the time and people snatch items and alter it and resell it. (not including full permission items)

So I have no problem with what I understand is a smart business decision on their part, the only people who will need to worry about it is the people who have copied and branded items they sell without permission...or write for magazines or newspapers, or for books and whatnot... yeah it makes sense to me.

Now if you can show me where it says I can not say second life in a chat with my friends here, I would change my mind.