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

[DGuller]

I thought the kind of straw one used to drink wine makes the taste different - have you tried different kinds DG?

MB says silly straws work the best, and I tend to agree.

You're supposed to drink it with a straw?    I just pour it in my mug and drink it.

[Jacob]

The problem is one of losing distinctiveness or "genericization". That is why you are not sued when you reach for a "kleenex" while making a "xerox" copy. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genericized_trademark

Note that protecting geographical origin is done in the EU through some special statutory process.

In short, it is not that they are asking for the same rights as IP holders. They are asking for, and getting, special rights not available to IP holders.

They're not asking for special treatment. The only difference is that their IP derives from geography and history rather than from the imagination of a marketing guy. In a conflict between the two, I'd rate geography and history higher.

[Ed Anger]

Try wine in a Dixie cup. Gives off an air of sophistication.

[The Minsky Moment]

In short, it is not that they are asking for the same rights as IP holders. They are asking for, and getting, special rights not available to IP holders.

One could just as easily say that holders of IP rights are getting "special rights" conveyed by statute.  In each case, what we are dealing with here is policy-driven legislation.

[PDH]

Also, those 16oz red plastic (white on the inside) party cups work great for wine!  They are deep enough that the straw doesn't fall out, and they hold enough liquid with room left over for the ice cubes!

Really, it is a win-win when you use those kinds of cups.

[Ed Anger]

Ah, the red rape drug cup.

[Malthus]

The problem is one of losing distinctiveness or "genericization". That is why you are not sued when you reach for a "kleenex" while making a "xerox" copy. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genericized_trademark

Note that protecting geographical origin is done in the EU through some special statutory process.

In short, it is not that they are asking for the same rights as IP holders. They are asking for, and getting, special rights not available to IP holders.

They're not asking for special treatment. The only difference is that their IP derives from geography and history rather than from the imagination of a marketing guy. In a conflict between the two, I'd rate geography and history higher.

The point of having all forms of IP rights (except this form) is to protect innovation - that much-disparaged "imagination of a marketing guy". Because innovation is something that our society wishes to foster and encourage.

That's why artists get copyright, inventors get patents, and horrible socially useless marketing hacks get trademarks. 

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.

[Malthus]

In short, it is not that they are asking for the same rights as IP holders. They are asking for, and getting, special rights not available to IP holders.

One could just as easily say that holders of IP rights are getting "special rights" conveyed by statute.  In each case, what we are dealing with here is policy-driven legislation.

Addressed in post above.

[The Minsky Moment]

Clearly indicating the origin of the grape on the label actually gives the consumer *more* useful information than simply designating one product as "champagne" and another product as "sparkling wine".

I don't agree for a bunch of reasons (for example, many European wines are blends) but luckily, both options are available.  If a producer wants inform the consumer of the dominant varietal - fine, label it that way.  If a producer wants to inform the consumer of origin -- which under most European appelations actually conveys varietal information as well - they should be able to do that as well.  What is being question here is the producer using a traditional designation of origin to brand a product that from some place totally different.  That is not useful information, it is just misleading the customer.

The point of having all forms of IP rights (except this form) is to protect innovation - that much-disparaged "imagination of a marketing guy". Because innovation is something that our society wishes to foster and encourage.

No - that is not true with respect to trademark.
Trademark exists not to promote innovation but primarily to prevent against customer confusion.

[DGuller]

Also, those 16oz red plastic (white on the inside) party cups work great for wine!  They are deep enough that the straw doesn't fall out, and they hold enough liquid with room left over for the ice cubes!

Really, it is a win-win when you use those kinds of cups.

I think you're trolling now.

[PDH]

Also, those 16oz red plastic (white on the inside) party cups work great for wine!  They are deep enough that the straw doesn't fall out, and they hold enough liquid with room left over for the ice cubes!

Really, it is a win-win when you use those kinds of cups.

I think you're trolling now.

No, I just live in a college town!

[Malthus]

Clearly indicating the origin of the grape on the label actually gives the consumer *more* useful information than simply designating one product as "champagne" and another product as "sparkling wine".

I don't agree for a bunch of reasons (for example, many European wines are blends) but luckily, both options are available.  If a producer wants inform the consumer of the dominant varietal - fine, label it that way.  If a producer wants to inform the consumer of origin -- which under most European appelations actually conveys varietal information as well - they should be able to do that as well.  What is being question here is the producer using a traditional designation of origin to brand a product that from some place totally different.  That is not useful information, it is just misleading the customer.

No it isn't. because the term in question has become genericized. The vast majority of people commonly call "sparking wine" "champagne" regardless of origin, so protecting the origin no longer makes any more sense than protecting "kleenex".

The problem with this "geographical origin" protection is that it makes no sense when terms of geographical origin have become common use for a product. What's next, prosecuting people for selling hamburgers that were not made in Hamburg, Germany? 

[The Minsky Moment]

No it isn't. because the term in question has become genericized. The vast majority of people commonly call "sparking wine" "champagne" regardless of origin, so protecting the origin no longer makes any more sense than protecting "kleenex".

I think we are going in circles . . .

[Ed Anger]

You could also use those mason jars. Toss out the nails or screws you store in them and pour away. It is like a night in Bordeaux.

[Malthus]

No it isn't. because the term in question has become genericized. The vast majority of people commonly call "sparking wine" "champagne" regardless of origin, so protecting the origin no longer makes any more sense than protecting "kleenex".

I think we are going in circles . . .

The basic problem here is humpty-dumptism. As in, you can't artificially through legal process make a name "non-generic" once it has already become generic.

If one must have "geographical origin" IP, subject it to the same rules are regular old IP - that is, must show continued non-generic use. So, no protection for Hamburg, Germany for "hamburgers" and no protection for Champagne, France for "champagne".