Previous Next Index Thread
Andrew C. Greenberg (email@example.com) wrote: >In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com wrote: >> But if the magazine is about Rolex, the company, I do think it's >> reasonable (including the publisher's hopes). Is there anything I'm >> missing here? >A small thing called the law of unfair competition. You seriously need >to read up on the subject. I am familiar with it. I fail to see the relevance though. In the Rolex example, the Rolex magazine isn't doing anything wrongful or deceptive (and I don't think the title is chosen to confuse). The magazine is ABOUT Rolex watches. According to the Unfair Competition Law page on the Cornell Law School server: "The law of unfair competition is primarily comprised of torts that cause an economic injury to a business, through a deceptive or wrongful business practice." What Lissack is doing isn't something I'd call a business practice. It even remains to be seen whether it's "unfair", deceptive, or wrongful. Perhaps you're right, perhaps he could be found guilty of "unfair competition". I think that's very unjust given that it sets a precedent for not being able to parody effectively and to not be able to criticise freely (not in a restricted manner). --Ram firstname.lastname@example.org || http://www.ram.org || http://www.twisted-helices.com/th TWISTED HELICES' Traversing a Twisted Path is now out on CD, with over 70 minutes of twisted music in a cool gimmick diecut CD case.