Stolen business name?

Technically 'right' or not, it is still WRONG.

It's ugly unethical behavior of the lowest caliber short of copying peoples store and setting it up as your own.

Ok, so there's one of the people who are antagonistic towards me who thinks that you are in the right Floyd (he'd posted earlier but failed to say that), and another of them who agrees with me that there was no intent to do any wrong, though I don't know she needed to post that - except that she'll post anything that could conceivably be against me

I certainly haven't metioned ethics and I doubt that Marcel did either. Perhaps you should change your glasses, Sling, or better still, just don't make things up - you know what that's called, don't you

Oh bullshit.

You can count the number of people on one hand who agree with your "business practices".

Every damn thread you start or get involved with on the subject turns into a major demonstration of your inability to accept anything other than your own hubris as input to your "ethical judgment".

Keep drinking your own kool-aid, though (over in your neck of the woods, it's generally called "taking the piss".

Poor deluded soul, but you do have wonderfully inventive dreams

People do make innocent mistakes. And of course none of us can read another's mind.

Still, some rationalizations seem less plausible than others.

For instance, the hottest Christmas 2009 toy was the Zhu Zhu Hamster. If I grab some fake fur and slap it on some radio-controlled cars and call it the ZhuZhu Hamster---giving the excuse that "I did my due diligence by searching for ZhuZhu Hamster, and didn't find any such name"---am I behaving ethically? Or am I behaving like a greedy cynical jerk, trying to benefit from the work and innovation of the makers of the Zhu Zhu? Am I behaving with integrity, or am I hoping to benefit from people confusing my product with the real thing?

Sometimes, I wish people were but a dream; a bad one, but a dream nonetheless. <.<

i want to go on record, again, and say that i see no problem with Floyd's store name. the way businesses come and go in SL, it probably won't matter in 3-6 months anyway.

i also want to go on record, again, and say that i see nothing wrong with Phil's business actions. i wish i had the time/inclination/knowledge to duplicate them.

If you would read anything I wrote for what it is, you would not find it so weird that I talk about ethics. When the fact that my ethics regarding Search in Second Life are not the same as yours, make you feel inclined to react as you do here... well enjoy.

One more thing: I find it extremely sad to see that people that in the past disagreed with Phil, now see it as a reason to laugh at what happens to him now. Now tell me one thing: How the hell does that hold up to your high ethical standards?

You know... at times like this I am glad the thread is running on these forums, and not SC2. If anything, it keeps my words civil...

But you have mentioned "doing the right thing" - more than once.

Given your statement that nobody can be asked to do more than comply with the rules, would you care to explain how "doing the right thing" relates to that?

How is it that you can take me to task for saying that you are not doing the right thing, but when it comes to your own interests, you feel that you can ask others to "do the right thing"?

And that's within hours of your posting to say that the right thing did not go beyond complying with the rules!!

Sling. Doing the right thing doesn't mean or imply ethics. It means exactly what it says.

eth⋅ics  [eth-iks] –plural noun
1. a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.

2. the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics.

3. moral principles, as of an individual.

4. that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.

The laugh is not at the particular situation of two businesses discovering that they had similar names. No way.


The laugh is at the blatant hypocrisy of Phil asking anyone to "do the right thing".
That's it!

Of course, you could do that. But how can you talk about the right thing with that attitude? You would use EXACTLY my name, not a different one. And if that is fair game... I can also slice half of my sim un 50 and do the same thing. That would indeed get ugly... Let's keep it fair...

Never heard of it, myself.



If you have good cause and claim for the name, sure. If you had no clue that there was such a name, then no, you weren't acting unethically; you just made a toy and gave it a name, no different than the other people who made their version. Someone might claim that your "due diligence" effort wasn't diligent enough, from a legal standpoint, but if you did what you thought was right with the knowledge you had at the time, you would be behaving ethically.

The analogy is a bit obtuse, because the name "Prim Savers" is generically descriptive of the products, rather than something creative picked out of a hat. In fact, I severely doubt it could be trademarked, because the market it is in, the words are likely not uniquely identifying enough to make it through the registration process. It is more like trying to trademark the name "Quick Copies" instead of "Xerox" or "Kinko's".



If you knew about it beforehand, and did it for those reasons, then yeah. However, I don't buy the "hoping to benefit from the confusion" part. If anything, it is a two-edged sword; there will be benefit, as well as detriment, from being associated with Phil's brand.

The real point is that this problem isn't going to be sorted out in the forum, not the least of the reasons being that a lot of people here feel like karma is getting served to someone who has been more than deserving.

After talking with him, I have little doubt that Floyd will do the "right" thing, once people stop threatening and harassing him over it, and for his own best interests, too. Unfortunately, I can't say the same for his "opponent".

According to Phil, that is nonsense,
It's only wrong if it's against the rules.

For example, Traffic botting is not "wrong" in itself - according to Phil.
It's recently become 'wrong' solely because it is against the letter of the TOS.

Correction:
a very small number of people here - those with attitude.

When you left my store yesterday, you abruptly closed conversation saying that you already filed an AR and let's let LL decide. Then it seems you came here. Two things untrue followed. First was stated in your first post, saying that I suggested the AR... which I never did. Second... why ask a forum to decide when you asked LL to decide already? Make up your mind

I did not say that you suggested the AR. Go back and read it again. What I said was the truth - that the AR suggestion came from live chat - that's a Linden.

If you read the post, and even the thread title, you'll see that I came here to ask about the situation. I didn't bring it here for any forum decision because a forum decision can't change anything. Please go back and read my posts - you'll see that they ask people for their views and opinions - that's all.

After you came, I asked you if you would let the forum decide, but that was after you came to the thread.

Ther were no untruths.

I don't find gaming search to be any less reprehensible (unethical, WRONG) than gaming trademarks. In fact, I daresay gaming search hurts FAR more people than gaming trademarks.



I am not surprised you would confuse it that way. I already advised Phil to get a lawyer and protect his "trademark". I advised Floyd the same. The rest has nothing to do with the "right or wrong" of the situation, but that Phil's own hypocrisy is now biting him in the rear. It doesn't change the fact that trademark infringement is ILLEGAL and unethical any more than search gaming is ILLEGAL and unethical.

Let me pose it to you (and Phil) this way: if there no LAW or RULE against trademark infringement, or the issue was about something which was just as unfair and abusive that was not SPECIFICALLY against the rules, would he still be here whining about it?

Of course he would, unless he was using it to his own advantage; then he'd crow about it.

Correction, a significant majority of the people here - those with scruples.

You need to go back to school and learn how to count

So from initially being pleasant enough with your opening post, your mask is beginning to slip as we're getting a peak at the darker side!

I just flew over to your shop....the land was acquired on the 20th Dec....so that's 20 odd days you have had your current shop set up on that 1/2 SIM. You mention you'd have to change 200 textures........i think long term that's time well spent! It still doesn't prevent you from selling your furniture in the mean time....one could do the Photoshopping in small blocks on a daily basis, it would not effect your ability to sell....it's not like you have to close the Store!

Whilst i was over there i noticed you had quite a team of staff!......are they there to help what little customers i saw milling around.....or are they there to bump up your Traffic score?

The more i think about all this,and the more we start scratching away at the surface the more sinister you seem to appear.!! I don't for one minute believe you're the type to do the "right thing"....it's not even on the menu of alternative solutions! Am I right or am I right?



.

I could have a lobotomy and STILL count better than you on your best day, pal.

ERM.... make up your mind