Stolen business name?

Well, OK, just to make you happy...

"Predictable annoying final passing shot!"

Was it as good for you as it was for me?

Guilty Conscience? No. Temporal Proximity.

I also didn't assume it was directed at me, which is why I asked. It was an honest question, but I understand how you could have missed that fact. <.<

Afterwards, you answered with charges and judgments related to me, so yeah, I guess it was. Hence:



Lots of assumptions and leaps to conclusions for judgment. I know lots of folks who don't have any ethical issues running their businesses, and feel the same way about others who cheat and game the system. I don't know your business, or how you go about it, so I have no comments on it, good or bad. The "absolute definitions" you refer to with such severity many people live by without problems. They aren't that hard.

As for my SL business, I have been in business since my second week here in SL. I *KNOW* I can live within them just fine.



If it is obnoxiously repetitive, it is so because people are being obnoxiously ignorant of it.



I'm already blue in the face. <.<

If you don't want to debate about it, then stop bringing it up. Would seem the logical course to me, anyway.



Probably. Might as well go as far as saying that we disagree on everything and just get it over with, ya know? Then no debate will ever be "necessary".

Works for me.

LOL.

You can now see first hand that those blanket character asassinations are not a good thing.

The ONLY issue here is Floyd Mistwalker purposely using an established SL Business name for is own new business and the refusing to make any changes when it is made clear to him it is a problem.

I am sure many merchants that have affiliated themselves with Floyd's 'business' would probably be appalled by this.

so if < insert ethically challenged person here > brings a claim of poor ethics against someone else, when they are specifically injured by the poor ethics they are decrying, you believe that has no relevance?

on the contrary it's a presentable fact by the opposition showing that they are merely following the standards of their opponent, even if it's not the exact matter at hand.

now me, I'm unsure that Phil has done anything illegal, and TBH I'm not sure Floyd has either but questionable ethics on either side are relevant to accusations of the same.


while I agree with this statement, I cannot in good conscious say that it should be prohibited... people may undertake many things that we find disturbing, or may be harmful to themselves. however their are laws to the effect (the same laws which could be used to classify Titanic as child pornography I might add) so it's banned from SL (and indeed illegal).

do I condone it? no, I think it's a vile and disgusting perversion... but I also don't believe in thought policing what I find personally despicable, when the parties involved are mature and not directly causing harm to another person, and that's an overriding theme with me.

Lots of words to say:
"Two wrongs make a right" and "Karma is a bitch - Phil got what was coming to him".

I cannot agree with this ideology. You are saying anyone who ever did anything wrong can be targeted as a victim and it should be OK with the community. So Floyd chose his victim wisely then.

They don't bother me; it doesn't change my stance one iota.



No, that's not the ONLY issue here. You might WANT it to be, but it isn't the only one, by far.



They'd probably be just as appalled by ham-fisted tactics used by the owner of said "established" SL business to deal with it as well as the ensuing witch-hunt propagated by said owner here in the forums. Then again, said owner has a habit of grandstanding for his own benefit anyway.

The established SL Business asked the piggybacker to change the name - Floyd refused. Where do these ham-fisted tactics come into play?

No one wants to spend years and hundreds of real dollars establishing a business identity in SL to just have Floyd show up and purposely confuse the consumers in some immoral attempt to start his new business off with some of Phil's customers.

Floyd cannot get a pass on this one. Then it becomes open season for all SL Business.

not at all... old offenses don't excuse new ones... but I think ignoring turnabout is silly... and so do most judges should the matter become legal... though, as I said Phil hasn't done anything legally damning, so that may work to his favor...

I don't think anyone has said that "two wrongs make a right". I've stated more than once that the name issue is a valid point of contention, and that both of them should seek out legal advice on the matter to resolve it, since it appears they are not able to resolve it between themselves. If it turns out that Phil can't (or won't) defend his name, then there is nothing illegal or against the rules going on. You HAVE to defend trademarks (and defending requires registration at some point) to be able to maintain exclusivity. Once you lose that, it is fair game for anyone to use it, legally.

That doesn't speak to the ethical issue. Of course it is unethical to piggyback off of another's success without permission (assuming that such is even happening, which is questionable in itself).

As for "karma" being "a bitch" and Phil getting "what was coming to him", that's all beside the point, but still important in the context of what is being said.



No, I am saying that people who live in glass houses shouldn't be casting stones.

I don't believe Floyd "chose" anybody to be a "victim". It is still a perfectly plausible explanation for his choosing of that name to be entirely innocent, and his reticence to changing it to be an unwise, but understandable, reaction to someone attempting to throw weight around that he simply doesn't have.

I still maintain if Phil had approached the problem differently, it probably would never have ballooned to the hysterical proportions it has. However, NONE of that changes the fact that him calling out someone publicly for being unethical is hypocritical in the extreme (as well as making it even less likely for an amicable settlement between him and Floyd without involving an expensive legal process on both their parts). I don't think there is any doubt that Phil exacerbated the situation by his words and deeds.

If the person with the "established SL Business" asked in a professional and polite manner, I don't think Floyd would have refused. The ham-fisted tactics came into play where the "asking" wasn't "asking" but "telling off", putting Floyd on the defensive.



You make the assumption that it was intentional from the start.

Sure, no one wants to have freeloaders off one's success, regardless of how it comes to be, whether it is trademark infringement, copyright infringement, or any form of gaming the system.

Phil's existing customers won't be confused. It is quite obvious that Floyd's business isn't the same as Phil's, name notwithstanding. Potential customers will only be confused if they only go by word-of-mouth name dropping, which I think is probably a small minority of customers. Most people are going to be searching for "furniture" or some other keyword. The ones directed to Phil are going to be primarily from picks, landmarks, creator profile checking in the edit window, etc.

That said, it isn't any less unethical to use a confusingly-similar name, and it's been stated by just about everyone that Phil needs to challenge it if he can't convince Floyd to change it otherwise.



No one is giving him a "pass". He and Phil can slug it out, and it will get resolved, one way or another.

You're funny, not to mention inventive which is tantamount to lying

For the information, I haven't written/uttered one syllable of "threats and bullying" - not in private or in public - but you've never been one for truth, have you?

As for cutting my own throat, it's said that he who laughs last, laughs longest. I've already had the last laugh over Floyd and there's nothing that anyone can do to change it. A few people are aware of it but not many - not yet

Ahh.. good ol' Phil.. Figured you would wheel out the "LIAR!" response at some point.



The existence (and substance) of this thread stands as a testament otherwise.



Oh boy! I can't wait!

This is absolutely not true. Phil asked nice - and the guy went off on his nonsense ramblings like he has done in this thread. After wading through all of it - Floyd said he would just keep the name because it gave his business a boost.
Of course it was.


Of course they will. That is Floyd's point.

Utter nonsense taken from Floyd's 'piggybacking playbook of excuses'.


Looks good on paper Talarus. But I believe you will be waffling back to the other side of the street by mid-day.

Traffic gaming (within the ToS and lceared by LL).
Copyright infringement (speculation).
Search gaming (within the ToS and cleared by LL).

Anything else?

Phil there is no need to let them bait you into defending actions that have nothing to do with this issue.

If they want to support the Floyd Mistwalker's of the internet - then let them.

I'd forgotten that Talarus has such an incredibly low moral standard - so low that it's allbut buried. Thank you for reminding me.

Oh, you were privy to their entire conversation from the start? or did you just take Phil's word for it?



You have evidence that it was, or speculation?



No they won't. Why would an EXISTING customer of Phil's go to Floyd's store thinking it was Phil's? That's sheer idiocy.



..and likely quite true.



I've yet to "waffle" at all.

Let me guess. You have hunches, right? lol

I've never seen you display any good judgement of character. Of course, I've only seen you display towards one person and your judgement in that case has always been miserably wrong. Yes I know - you didn't clain to be a *good* judge of character, but what you wrote could have been understood as that.

He's been "baited" into defending his "actions" since long before Floyd was created. Why is now any less of a time to defend them?



Definitely no worse than supporting the Phil Deakins of the internet.

Must be mid-day where you are about now.

Why would you say anything else, Phil? It's ABSOLUTELY EXPECTED that you're just going to parrot "invert(whatever Talarus says)".

You're at least consistent in that regard...

mmmm

No, still mid-night. <.<

And you know these things, how? Remember that I have a log of every conversation between Floyd and myself so, for a change, do avoid making things up. There was no hamfistedneess unless it's hamfisted to ask him if he's going to change the name since he knows that it's already in use and has been for a long time. After that conversation, the rest is here in this thread, apart from a short IM chat which was also perfectly polite.

So explain this hamfistedness please. If you don't, it didn't happen. If you do, we need evidence, and I give you permission to reproduce any private conversations in which I am involved, to back up your claim. If your evidence is contained in private conversations with Floyd, get his permission too. You see, you stated that I was hamfisted about it. You may be right but I know that I wasn't (unless anything less than touching my forelock and pretty-pleasing Floyd to change his name is hamfisted). So let's see what you got.


Note:
How come, when I ask a certain type of person to explain their accusations, they shrink away for a while without even attempting to respond? I asked Sling to show us the evidence of an accusation a few pages back, but what did she do - she disappeared for a while because she couldn't. These cowardly and nasty people are only any good for throwing out accusations - figments of their imagination - but fade into the background when asked to support their claims.