Wall Street protesters: We're in for the long haul

[garbon]

You mean people in Russia really do call Prosecco Champagne?  Well I think you have done a great service in undermining Garbon's argument.

Not really sure what Russia has to do with my argument. At any rate, I can totally someone who doesn't know of prosecco calling it champagne.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/champagne

1: a white sparkling wine made in the old province of Champagne, France; also : a similar wine made elsewhere

[MadImmortalMan]

I don't think boxed wine is much better.  I tried Franzia wine, and it seems to go bad within seconds of opening.

Indeed, even before.

[Darth Wagtaros]

So the protestors trashed the park they were staying at in NY?

[Admiral Yi]

Heard on CNN that the protesters plan to move uptown and protest in front of the residences of Jamie Dimon, Henry Paulsen, and Rupert Murdoch.  They are going to protest their "hoarding of wealth."

[Malthus]

The basic problem here is humpty-dumptism.

No, I mean I think we are going around in circles as in I already responded to that same point.

You mean here?

This is a separate point - whether a particular name has become so associated with the general concept that it can't be entitled to protection anymore, just as with a trademark.  But even if true, the situation only arose in the Americas precisely because for a long time, the governments here refused to protect origin designations, so in effect the argument is somewhat perverse - that because we blocked the Champenoise from taking reasonable steps to protect their designation in the past, they should now be prevented from ever taking those steps in the future.

I don't see this as a "perversity". Many legal innovations fail to have retrospective effect, and in any event, "champagne" has been a genericized term for a very long time.

Point here is that it may well be "fair" for some value of fairness to require (say) all hamburger vendors to cease, as of now, labelling hamburgers as hamburgers unless they actually come from Hamburg, but it is simply too late, as the word has already entered the language as a generic term - and thus does legislation have to bend to reality.

Same with "Bologna sausage" - should one be able to legally call baloney, baloney? 

[frunk]

There are two propositions here and they are contradictory to one another.  Proposition 1 is that there is no problem for the consumer because wine labels clearly indicate origin; proposition 2 is that protecting names of origin - which is the very thing on the label that tells you provenance - is unecessary.  Of course, without protecting the origin names, the usefulness of labels indicating origin is seriously undermined.

It's not contradictory.  There is value in communicating to the consumer where a product is from.  There is no compelling need such that there should be a regulatory issue for the name of the product to be the signifier of origin.  This goal is achieved just as ably by other package labeling and advertising.

[Sheilbh]

In this case, you have IP being used specifically to protect vested interests without any reference to innovation. Not I think a good use of the legal remedy.

I don't think it's protecting vested interests so much as tradition and heritage.  In much the same way as it protects innovation rather than just the marketing guy. 

But I agree with Minsky it seems to me the key is to help consumers.

Until Garbon suggested such a thing I didnt know Champagne was used a generic term either.

Neither did I.  I know Champagne's different from, say, Cava or Prosecco but they're all sparkling wines. 

Point here is that it may well be "fair" for some value of fairness to require (say) all hamburger vendors to cease, as of now, labelling hamburgers as hamburgers unless they actually come from Hamburg, but it is simply too late, as the word has already entered the language as a generic term - and thus does legislation have to bend to reality.

Also hamburger's the name of a product not a specific variation of a product - and there's more to it than geography.  This analogy makes it sound like the EU only allows Parma ham to be called 'ham' which isn't the case.  If there was a specific method of producing hamburgers from Hamburg then I'd be fine with restricting usage of Hamburg hamburgers

[Malthus]

In this case, you have IP being used specifically to protect vested interests without any reference to innovation. Not I think a good use of the legal remedy.

I don't think it's protecting vested interests so much as tradition and heritage.  In much the same way as it protects innovation rather than just the marketing guy. 

But I agree with Minsky it seems to me the key is to help consumers.

Until Garbon suggested such a thing I didnt know Champagne was used a generic term either.

Neither did I.  I know Champagne's different from, say, Cava or Prosecco but they're all sparkling wines. 

Point here is that it may well be "fair" for some value of fairness to require (say) all hamburger vendors to cease, as of now, labelling hamburgers as hamburgers unless they actually come from Hamburg, but it is simply too late, as the word has already entered the language as a generic term - and thus does legislation have to bend to reality.

Also hamburger's the name of a product not a specific variation of a product - and there's more to it than geography.  This analogy makes it sound like the EU only allows Parma ham to be called 'ham' which isn't the case.  If there was a specific method of producing hamburgers from Hamburg then I'd be fine with restricting usage of Hamburg hamburgers

Champagne is the name of a product, not simply a variation on a product, just as much as "hamburger" or "bologna".

One could easily call hamburger "ground beef" or baloney "sausage".

Point here is that it is silly to "protect consumers" by restricting the language legally in ways it has never been restricted before.

[Sheilbh]

Champagne is the name of a product, not simply a variation on a product, just as much as "hamburger" or "bologna".

Champagne's a white wine from the Champagne region, that ferments in bottle (unlike other sparkling wines, to the best of my knowledge) and is only from a list of permitted grapes.  I don't think you could get much more specific.  The name's been associated with that specific type of wine - and with the houses that produce it - for far longer than it's been a 'generic' product.

As far as I can see it's only a generic product for Russians, certain Canadians and some Americans.

[MadImmortalMan]

Looks like they've taken over the Hart Senate office building in DC.

[Darth Wagtaros]

Is it time to: invest in canned goods and shotguns?

[Admiral Yi]

What is Prosseco?

[Sheilbh]

What is Prosseco?

Sparkling white wine from Italy.  It's drier than asti so is often used by cheap bars (like the ones I've worked in) as the champagne in Bellinis.

[Admiral Yi]

What's a Bellini?

[The Minsky Moment]

Champagne's a white wine from the Champagne region, that ferments in bottle (unlike other sparkling wines, to the best of my knowledge)

Not entirely true - there are many non-Champagnes that use the methode champenoise (and there are many that do not).

But otherwise, I agree with the point.

As far as I can see it's only a generic product for Russians, certain Canadians and some Americans.

The US example I think is illustrative.  US wine labelling has always been carefully regulated; why then did the US authorities permit what seems like the misleading practice of calling a wine "Burgundy" that bears no resemblance to an actual burgundy, including the varietals used?  For the same reason the Chinese for many reasons permitted rampant DVD piracy - to protect the interests of a weak domestic industry.

But fast forward several decaded to the point where the US wine industry has made many gains qualititatively and quantitatively, and those same rules start to look inconvenient.  Now the US has names to protect - regional names like Napa and Sonoma, and even more specific designations (AVAs) like Howell Mountain or Russian River.  So the US cut a deal with the EU to give greater protection to designations of geographic origin.

Russia has no quality wine industry to speak of, and Canada just has the niche icewines in southern Ontario, and so there is no incentive to extend reciprocal treatment.  As a matter of national policy, this is sensible enough, but to try to concoct a position of principle out of that policy choice is another matter.