Stolen business name?

Don't sound like an idiot.

Floyd never searched for "Prim Savers" - that much is obvious, and shows a serious deficit in his intelligence when it came to choosing a business name and checking that it was available.

He's a dirty thief who has poised himself to profit off of 2+ years of labor that Phil Deakins went through to build up the name for his business "Prim Savers".

What a piece of tripe.

Prim Savers traffic count as of this posting: 17,650
Primsavers traffic count as of this posting: 7,894
Ellaine Capelo's ability to read traffic count: 0
Those who can create content in SL do, those who can't post infantile spelling and grammar challenged comments on other people's creations.

Putting aside whose product is better, if I made and sold low prim sculpted furniture I would never want it to be mistakenly identified with a brand that does not make low prim sculpted furniture. It would be bad for my business in the long run, especially in a niche market like low prim furniture.

Take the word of whomever you like; it still doesn't change the facts. Hence:



At the time you posted the chat (here), you accidentally left his name in the chat. I saw it before you removed it, but don't remember the name. I do remember that it was not one of the management-level policy-making people, like Jack, Harry, or Cyn.

If you read that chat, "X" Linden is clearly not making a stance about the use of Traffic bots, but generically parroting the rules in response to your queries.



Everyone who works Live Chat most certainly is not in the decision/policy-making process, no.



"Blessed" and "tolerated" are VERY different things. Being in support (not LL support, but customer support), I can tell you that anything you don't have to deal with as part of your job, you don't. If Traffic bots aren't against the ToS, it wouldn't be my job to do anything about them, and anyone asking me if it is OK to run them, with strict regards to the ToS, I am glad to answer "yes", and get on with the next call. However, that is NOT in any WAY, SHAPE, or FORM to be construed as a "blessing" nor an endorsement, nor is it any kind of policy statement, other than reiterating the status quo. You simply cannot expect a policy stance from the words of a support person.

It does NOT change the fact that the use of traffic bots damaged the usability of the Search engine, which is evidenced in truth by Linden Lab subsequently banning their use for that specific purpose. If they weren't "wrong" to use, why would they, of all people, even bother?



More than two years on from the first adfarming policies, there are still well over 3000 microparcels, most of which are owned by a handful of miscreants. That says nothing about the issue other than LL takes a laissez-faire approach to everything they do.

Never said it was. <.<



I don't think "Zhu Zhu Hamster" is even REMOTELY in the same scale of ubiquity as "iPhone" or "iPod", nor "General Electric", or "Citigroup", and hell, "Prim Savers" isn't even on the same continent, let alone ball park.

Sorry, fail there.



How do you figure?



I agree, but if one makes that effort, and still thinks like their name is unique from the results, then I think they are still behaving ethically, even if their search was not exhaustive.



You most certainly can if you did. If you searched for it and DON'T find it using what you consider are the best methods at hand to find it, then you CAN claim due diligence. It may be possible that the established Pizza joint is set up as a DBA, which isn't necessarily in all databases under that name.



Maybe. Depends on the law. When I registered my business name in the early 80s, there weren't any others out there that I found. Now, there are several of them all over the US. They all are computer / IT outfits. They aren't "unethical" for choosing my name. Hell, it is even LEGAL for them to have that name.



Wasn't making it myself, either. <.<

K-I-T-C-H-E-N. Kitchen, ok, it's spelled, kitchen. If you're not sure, check Prim Savers for proper spelling...

(Yeah I know, just call me Pep)

After reading through all 12 pages, having a good laugh and taking in some huge thoughts, here I am to finally post something. I'm no expert in business or copyrighting and such but Ill take a neutral stance in this. From where I see and in my opinion, neither side is in the wrong in the issue, but there are some things....

Customers aren't dumb. I do admit that some can be mindless lambs when it comes to furniture shopping, but even then, people can compare quality and prices easily. Accompanied with a quick right click and 'inspect' menu, they can immediately see the creator's name right there in the info bar, and seeing that both places have products created by people affiliated to or are actually the creator's shop, I dont see an issue. If anything happens with a confusion of products, its the customer's fault for not looking before leaping in the first place.

Seeing that neither side will back down and both have their arguements in the matter, its clear that changing names is not a fair avenue. I managed to spot some sense in this chaos from someones post somewhere in the thread that mentioned something about SL names being business trademark (or something to that effect). No shop names need be changed, but I suggest only that both shopowners take steps to let thier own SL NAMES be known besides their shop names. Sort of like those clothing lines where designers promote their names rather than the names of their business. This way people can differentiate between the two places with a bit more ease.

Theres my dime on the subject....

wow Floyd has somehow caused a stir>>>lol...I have a few things to say as well.....I will try not to be biassed because i have known floyd a long time and know for a fact he would never purposly use someone elses name for his own benefit...Floyd is a very hard worker and works day and night on his creations (and does a fantastic job I might add).....Im not sure if Phil is more worried he will lose business because of the name or because Floyds furniture quality is way better....No matter which it doesnt really matter.>>> what i see here is that Phil now has unintentionally given free advertising to Floyds business just by airing this rather than sitting down and settling it in a civilized manner.Im sure alot of people reading these posts have gone to both stores and seen for themselves the difference in quality of work and style of furniture. Personally Phil if your customers love your store they should know how to spell the name...I have never mistakingly put a space in when searching Floyd's store .
All that being said I know Floyd did not try and steal the name and try and cut into Phil's profits that is completley absurd,he doesnt need to if anyone went to look at his work they would see this....his work is excellent and he would get high traffic whether he used PrimSavers or simply called his store Floyds low prim furniture!!
The name doesnt sell the furniture the quality does...

"exhaustive"......?

"the best methods at hand"....?

Are you serious?


The position you defend here (that bestirring oneself to search not only for "PrimSavers" but also for "Prim Savers" is, apparently, far beyond the realm of reasonable expectation) is ridiculous on its face.

I think that you will find that where I comment on something that Phil posts, it is completely confined to countering his arguments attempting to justify Search gaming. Apart from occasionally commenting on the streams of abuse that he spouts at times, I have never made any negative comment on his products or anything not related to Search gaming.
If I were chasing and harassing him, I would be pouncing on his every post. You will find threads in which both he and I are posting on other topics with not the slightest hint of friction. You will find at least one thread in which I posted a helpful answer to a query by Phil. Something to do with land as I remember.


In the case of this thread, we have Phil asking someone to "do the right thing" - within hours of him making a clear statement that the most anyone should be asked to do would be to comply with the rules. For him, the spirit of the rules was non-existent.


To press Phil for an explanation of this glaring conflict of statement and behaviour is not harassment. This question of the letter of the law v. the spirit of the law - and "doing the right thing" is at the very centre of all the Search gaming threads going right back.





"The Linden basically told me i could...."
At the time, the use of Traffic bots was not mentioned in the TOS. Using them was not explicitly contrary to the TOS.
Is it reasonable to expect J.Random Linden to set specific Official LL policy on the fly?

What you got was a Linden passing the buck. They were not going to make the call. That's not their job. The safest response for Live Chat was to tell you that *provided you were not breaking TOS* you could do something. They made no judgement as to whether you proposed to them was actually breaking TOS. That's not their job. Pass the buck to the AR team.

What happened when Phil took this question of business names to Live Chat? The Linden passed the buck. They were not going to make the call. That's not their job. The safest response was to suggest an AR.

That's two Live Chats, with the exact same generic response. Pass the buck on any such questions to the AR team.


If you have a verbatim quote - as opposed to "basically told me" - of a Linden saying that the use of traffic bots to game Search by inflating Traffic had LL's blessing, it would be very interesting to see that.

What we *do* have from Official LL is this:

This is not LL saying that from the time of the ban, that Traffic botting is counter to TOS - for no particular reason. Clearly they banned Traffic botting *because it was unfair*.
It was always unfair. The TOS just hadn't caught up.

I have just started a new line of sexually animated beds with a menu system, my store is called Sex Gen.

Rock

Well isn't that convenient, two brand new posters standing up for Floyd, as good friends. One of them even titles the posting "learn to be nice", after which he or she shows how not to be nice. Almost funny

Since Floyd declared he is not going to change anything (as was to be expected), this is how it looks to me so far. Some things I decided not to react upon so far, but minds have been made up it seems.

Floyd clearly does try the piggy back ride. Now I would believe it was an honest mistake if it were not for the shelves. Putting 12 shelves with the exact name of Prim Savers up in search clearly shows that Floyd at that moment already was aware of Phils store. Now these shalves are removed from search now, but they were there. Floyd said it was a mistake, but doesn't it seem strange that someone puts 12 Shelved out with a completely different company name (his own words) by mistake? There are two choices:

- He by accident put a space between Prim and Savers when putting the shelves up for sale, which means those business names indeed are not different. It is so easy to add the space by accident, after all

- He did some tests regarding search to see how he ended up when searching for Prim Savers. Which clearly shows he knew about the name before Phil spoke to him.

Playing the devils advocate here, it sounds like big supermarket versus little supermarket. As much as I support Phil's stance on ethics/morals, Floyd hasn't done anything legally wrong. Some people would say 'support your corner shop', ah but the big supermarkets have more products at a better price. Healthy compettion fuels economy and drives business and it's survival of the fittest. Morals don't come into it. I work in planning and there is nothing to stop every shop in the high street becoming say.... a supermarket. It's good for the punters. Seems to me like both businesses are getting a hell of a lot of free advertising and anyway, todays news is usually tomorrow's fish and chip paper and to my mind there's no such thing as bad publicity.

Phil has 10 full-time bots. Floyd has 1 full-time "staff" (probably a bot), and spends a lot of time (but not full time) on the parcel himself, with his partner.



Dagmar's being hoodwinked by traffic gaming: a complete success.

On the basis of that traffic and those bot numbers - assuming 24/7 for the bots

Phil's non-bot Traffic is 3250
Floyd's non-bot Traffic is 6453

I have no idea how many bots Phil is running these days. He does post about his castle guards and a damsel in distress. He also says that he has bot models running.

Even at 8 bots, Phil's non-bot Traffic would be 6131, still less than Floyd's with only one bot.


Yup! Dagmar's been gamed.

Ten. TEN. 10. Did you think I made the number up? There are 6 in his store and 4 in his castle, on the same parcel.

This is a confusing statement. If Floyd hasn't done anything legally wrong, then by Phil's stated stance on ethics/morals, Floyd has done nothing wrong.

Better in what way. There was no way that Floyd was going to change his business name. I spoke to Floyd in a perfectly adult fashion (I'm an adult, so it's easy). Of course I was hostile - he's passing his store off as mine - but I wasn't agressive or anything like that.

lol. It was only a slim chance because he didn't bother to look. An idiot *would* have found Prim Savers if s/he wanted to know if PrimSavers was in use, and I don't believe that Floyd is an idiot.

You mean you're going to lie here, because that's what it is. I haven't looked at Floyd's creations so I've no idea of their quality. And, of course, it's impossible for me to know what 'traffic' he gets. Tip: when you try to be nasty, think a bit more before posting. It'll save you the embarrassment, although hiding behind an alt doesn't really embarrass you does it.

Better in what way? There was no way that Floyd was going to change his business name. I spoke to him in a perfectly adult fashion (I'm an adult, so it's easy). Of course I was hostile - he's passing his store off as mine - but I wasn't agressive or anything like that.

lol. It was only a slim chance because he didn't bother to look. An idiot *would* have found Prim Savers if s/he wanted to know if PrimSavers was in use, and I don't believe that Floyd is an idiot.

You mean you're going to lie here, because that's what it is. I haven't looked at Floyd's creations so I've no idea of their quality. And, of course, it's impossible for me to know what 'traffic' he gets. Tip: when you try to be nasty, think a bit more before posting. It'll save you the embarrassment, although you're hiding behind an alt so it doesn't really embarrass you does it.

Better in what way. There was no way that Floyd was going to change his business name. I spoke to Floyd in a perfectly adult fashion (I'm an adult, so it's easy). Of course I was hostile - he's passing his store off as mine - but I wasn't agressive or anything like that.

lol. It was only a slim chance because he didn't bother to look. An idiot *would* have found Prim Savers if s/he wanted to know if PrimSavers was in use, and I don't believe that Floyd is an idiot.

You mean you're going to lie here, because that's what it is. I haven't looked at Floyd's creations so I've no idea of their quality. And, of course, it's impossible for me to know what 'traffic' he gets. Tip: when you try to be nasty, think a bit more before posting. It'll save you the embarrassment, although you're hiding behind an alt so it doesn't really embarrass you does it.

He did know about the Prim Savers name before I spoke to him - he said so.

About the shelves. I don't know who put them there, Floyd or someone else, but it's clear that they were intended to benefit from the Prim Savers name by passing his store of as Prim Savers.

-----------------------------------------

For those who don't think that PrimSavers legally violates the Prim Savers trademark, you are mistaken. I've done some checking on the government site here and it does violate it because it gives the impression of being the same entity, provided that Prim Savers is registerable as a trademark rather than merely being common term, such as Fast Pizza Deliveries or Botanical Gardens. I think the posts about CocaCola and such show it very well. I do think that Prim Savers is registerable. Fast Pizza Deliveries and Botanical Gardens are commonly used in every day language, but Prim Savers isn't - it's a contrived term.

I don't know one way or the other, but I'll accept that Floyd didn't know about Prim Savers when he chose his business name, although someone entering the SL low prim furniture field ought to have known. I don't accept that he did much of anything to find out if the name he wanted to use was already in use. If he'd tried to find out, he would have come across Prim Savers.

He sounds like a genuine person and his apology for the shelves sounded genuine, but those shelves shouldn't have been there in the first place - they weren't a mistake - they were too specific to have been a mistake.

Anyway, what is, is. We'll see if LL chooses to do anything about it.

Why not try that with things where you generally have a consensus?

"Is it against the TOS to evict a tenant without refund?"
"Is it against the TOS to resell someone else's freebie?"
...

Just because a question gets answered with "no, it's not against the TOS" doesn't mean they're actively cheering for every estate owner to run a rental scam.

You might even recall that camping was far more widespread than traffic bots ever were and that Cory Linden addressed the issue of traffic being gamed back near the start of 2007 already by stating it would get removed "soon" because it was no longer accurate.

Kitty: Rene didn't even suggest that LL were "actively cheering" traffic bots, so your examples are meaningless.

However, they may have been because there was a good reason for LL to cheer them. but we just don't know.

Fox, genuine question, if you happen to know the answer (no particular reason why you should, but you might). What would happen if I tried to open up a small supermarket called "Cost Cutter" or a variety store called "Pound Stretcher" in your town? While there may well be no obstacle in planning law, I suspect I'd be receiving letters from Costcutter's and Poundstretcher's respective legal departments before too long.

What Rene wrote was ".....gaming traffic with Bots had LL's blessing!....."

The logic by which he comes to that conclusion woould mean that evicting a tenant without refund or reselling someone else's freebie had LL's blessing.
Ad-farms would also have had LL's blessing.


What we do know for certain is that LL in an official policy statement said "using Bots to manipulate traffic (and therefore Search rankings) is unfair. Not only with respect to Search itself but also ..."

That whole thing you do with commenting on semantic when you don't actually have anything to counter the gist of what is being said is getting rather old.

Feel free to substitute "blessing" if you feel it makes such an immense different but the methodology doesn't change.

You (or Rene or anyone who feels that "not against the TOS = has LL's 'blessing'" find examples of things where there's a near-unanimous consensus that LL would either not actually endorse it, or that it shouldn't be happening and ask if they are against the TOS.

At that point one of two things has to happen:
- you remain convinced of your position and claim LL "blessed" all of the things you asked that aren't against the TOS
- you concede that "not against the TOS" doesn't actually mean what you've been claiming it means

It's not difficult, but then you never seem very interested in anything but your silly word and insult games (even with this thread you couldn't resist playing games instead of doing the adult thing which would have been to suggest you and Floyd stop posting and discuss things in private without all the drama).