Stolen business name?

That's probably how it should be, but Sexgen is only registered in the US (or at least it's not showing up on WIPO) and LL still acts on Stroker's trademark even though it's not internationally registered.

Although it might be possible that if someone owns a trademark in their country of residence and they can show that someone from that same country can buy things from an allegedly infringing store (since we can't restrict access by country that would be a "by default/design" then LL might need to take action.

Or LL might only need to bother respecting US registered trademarks (probably unlikely since they have offices in Europe as well and are planning a European datacenter).

International trademark lawyer should definitely be consulted .

Phil says he put an AR in on the 10th.
If this is a TOS violation, the the G-Team should be taking action.

If Phil were saying that section X of the TOS or CS is being violated, then that would clarify things.
If he were saying that under the legal jurisdiction applicable to activities on SL servers, that his trademark registered (?) in jurisdiction B is being violated by someone using a very similar name, even if that person has registered their trademark in jurisdiction C.

Phil has been asking Floyd to "do the right thing" - his actual words in posts above.
"Doing the right thing" / "spirit of the rules" is something that Phil has laughed at over the years.

As I understand it, someone already using an unregistered trademark (like Prim Savers) prevents someone else from registering it, but does it prevent someone else from also *using* it (also unregistered)?

Wasn't there some drama that spilled into the Forums a while back?

A German femdom or D/S sim - in which some disaffected group members engineered a takeover of the SL operation by registering trademarks?

It may be a TOS violation that is difficult to prove if the mark is unregistered, so...



...if Phil's position is that the TOS is the measure of right and wrong, it still wouldn't be hypocrisy for him to *ask* Floyd to "do the right thing" in this case, where LL might not be willing to *force* him to "do the right thing."

That's true, but the only grey area is whether or not "Prim Savers" is registerable as a trademark, and I am sure that it is. If it is, it wouldn't need to be registered to win a case. I don't see any doubt as to whether or not "PrimSavers" would infringe the trademark when trading in the same field and in the same place.

That's because legalities never came up before - nothing was illegal. The law would be specifically identified by a lawyer - not by me. It isn't necessary to identify it to know that it's illegal. We know that it's illegal to run a red light, for instance, but none of us are able to identify the exact law.

If it's against the law, it's wrong. You are confusing the law with the ToS.

That's correct. They are/were not illegal.

You keep mentioning the law and the ToS, but you are treating them as the same when they are not. If something is within the ToS (and legal) then it's ok to do it. If something is illegal, it is wrong to do it, regardless of any ToS.

You are mistaken. I am sure of the legalities. I am absolutely sure of them concerning the actual legal infringement and 95% sure that my tradename is registerable. I think that adds up to being sure about it.

I *think* (but I am by no means sure) that Sexgen doesn't need -- in this instance -- to worry about international registration because a US court will hear any dispute between him and LL and will -- obviously -- recognise a US-registered trade mark. The advantage of the Madrid System is that you can use it to have your trade mark recognised by courts in jurisdictions other than the one in which it's registered.

But if I were to open a company in the UK called Sexgen I don't think there's much Stroker could do about it, so long as I didn't try to sell stuff via SL or in the USA since, from what you say, he's not bothered to protect the name anywhere else.

If I laughed at the suggestion, it was because I was already doing the right thing - as I always have. I know that what I do is not the right thing from the point of view of some idealistic people, but that never meant that it wasn't the right thing.

The right thing, is this case, would be to accept that PrimSavers is so close to Prim Savers that people would think they are the same, just as people would think that CocaCola or Coca Cola is the same as Coca-Cola.

At the time you raised the AR and the Thread:







etc., etc,


You clearly didn't know if it was illegal or not.


Perhaps *at this stage* you have obtained professional legal advice to the effect that you have a viable case.
When you started this you only had a feeling that it was wrong. You were asking Floyd to "do the right thing".

Actually, I don't think Phil uses the TOS as a measure of "right and wrong" so much as "allowed and not allowed", so if the TOS was his only measure then yeah, he'd be better to ask Floyd to "do the allowed thing."

In this thread, though, he uses the term "right" when referring to the law (as opposed to the TOS). There's plenty of room to argue that this isn't consistent with his and others' claim that what isn't forbidden is fair game. Is doing something that is not illegal (but objected to highly) different than doing something that isn't forbidden by the TOS (but objected to highly)?

I'd like to hear Phil clarify what he means by right and wrong vs allowed and not allowed.

And Floyd is arguing that this is only "the right thing" in the view of some idealistic people. I happen to agree with you that Floyd is wrong in this case, but since I'm neither a judge nor Linden Lab I'm just another idealistic person. Like you.

LL had to change the TOS to *force* Phil and other Traffic botters to "do the right thing".

That's right, but you didn't say that I didn't know the legalities at the start of the thread. You said "even at this stage, 6 days later". That's what I replied to, as you can see both from your post and mine.

Yes, Floyd is arguing that, but he's wrong. he'd discover that if he consulted a specialist lawyer, or even did some research.

In your idealistic mind, that's true.

You are entitled to your view of what doing the right thing is, as is everyone else.

You're missing a trick.

Try "not forbidden" instead of "allowed".
Some would have it that Traffic bots had LL's blessing, because they knew about them but did not expressly forbid them.


It's simple.
If something is to Phil's advantage, and it's not expressly forbidden, then it's not "wrong".
If somebody else does something (something that Phil isn't doing) and it works against Phil's interests, then even if he can't identify something that expressly forbids it, it's "wrong".

... including Floyd

It's no different to what I've always said, although I'm not sure that it can be clarified in a few sentences, but I'll have a go.

Wrong is doing something that is not allowed, is illegal, is immoral, hurts or harms people, is against the ToS (provided that the ToS doesn't instist on doing any of those other things),

Right is doing things that are moral, legal, doesn't hurt or harm people, is allowed.

Neither of those include the preferences of idealistic people.

I hope I've covered it all.

Of course, he's as entitled as you are. What nobody is allowed to do is break the law.

ETA:
If someone is breaking the law without a justifiable cause, they are not doing the right thing.

You do have such a short memory, Sling - or you try to twist things in spite of your memory. You know very well that LL were asked specfically whether traffic bots are allowed or not, and on both occasions they confirmd that they are allowed.

You should post that stuff where I can't see it. Otherwise you'll always be corrected with the truth. It must become quite embarrassing for you at times, such as on the previous page where you posted something about me not knowing the legal position after 6 days of this thread. I posted that I do know the legal position. You replied with "at the beginning of the thread", which is contrary to what you posted. Why don't you just say things like, "Oh yes. I was mistaken about that", instead of always trying to maintain the idea of having to be right and never making a mistake. Everyone can see you were wrong, so it's much better to own up when you make a mistake.

How about doings that harm other people but are not expressly forbidden?

Read my post. I said, "Right is doing things that are moral, legal, doesn't hurt or harm people, is allowed." The 3rd item in the list answers your question. But if it isn't clear enough for you, doing things that hurt or harm other people is wrong, regardless of whether or not they are expressly forbidden.

A better question would be, what do I mean by "hurt or harm?"

Talk about twisting things!

If you have two transcripts of a Linden saying "Traffic bots are allowed", I'd be fascinated to see them.
What is reported to have happened is that when asked that question a support Linden said that people could do something provided that it did not break the TOS. The Linden did not adjudicate on the matter, they passed the buck to the G-Team and ARs.







That's funny. I was right and you are kidding yourself.
You should post that stuff where I can't see it. Otherwise you'll always be corrected with the truth.

So:-

You say that you have "arrived at a firm belief".
You say that you have arrived at that conclusion
-- from the comments here, and
-- from checking on the UK government's website.

*Clearly*, you do not know the legal position. You have seen some comments from non-prefessionals. Some comments give weight to your belief, some to not, so you choose the ones that suit you.
You look at a website.


and...


Again you don't know the legal position.


Your bombast above is just you usual MO, fantasising that something is so just because you say so.


Everyone can see you were wrong, so it's much better to own up when you make a complete prat of yourself.

Clearly you consider that a lower ranking in Search doesn't hurt or harm anyone.

This despite your posting of a significant fall in sales when your ranking dropped the time you tried removing your Traffic bots as an experiment.

No, Sling. I never twist anything - you do. It's all here for everyone to see. The newest example is on the previous page of this thread. You were wrong. You might as well admit it - it's still there for all to see.

You've seen the transcripts, Sling. They are still here in the forum. The Lindens didn't pass any buck to any LL team as there was no buck to pass. Traffic bots were allowed and they said so. That's all there there is.

I'm glad you found it funny It doesn't change the fact that you were wrong though. (see below )

I said that I am totally sure of one aspect and 95% sure of another, and they add up to being sure. Which part of that don't you understand, Sling?


And you know what my PM to Couldbe said, do you That's funny. I'd check your barrel, if I were you. You must have scraped many holes in the bottom of it by now.


Sling Sling Sling. Don't sink into Mort's method of simply saying things about a person that the person said about you. It's so childish. Marcel showed you that I do admit when I am wrong - he actually showed you. You've even seen it in this thread. He also said that you don't do that, and he was perfectly correct. Forget Mort. His methods are so childish and ridiculous. He always did it but it's not common for you to do it - I'll give you that.