The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: Okay, you still don't understand what a

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: That is my argument, as well. (see in situ)

Okay, you still don't understand what a

trademark is for or how it's acquired. A trademark is consistent with free markets, and I would argue ESSENTIAL to free markets, in that it protects both the consumer and the business.

Austrian Theory adheres to the subjective theory of value, meaning that the prices are not determined by how much labor or time the producer puts in or how "useful" a given product is (utility theory of value) but that the value of a given product is subjective to each situation and individual: I can be ready to pay 1000$ for a hammer but you would not pay more than 1$ for the same hammer, it's subjective.

Trademarks protects the consumer from fraud and it protects the business' reputation therefore preserving the integrity of any subjective theory of value. And no, it is not first come first serve, a trademark is EARNED and it has various degrees of strength.

Let me give you an example:

Suppose my birth name is Michael Jordan (just like the famous ex NBA star and the name is very common across America) and I decide to make running shoes on which I put my name on it (Michael Jordan) even before Michael Jordan became famous...

Michael Jordan becomes famous and I'm still selling the shoes with the name on it.

How it protects the consumer:

Now as a customer do you think it is plausible that when making your purchase you might confuse the Michael Jordan name on the shoes, which is in no way affiliated to the NBA star, to in fact represent the name of the NBA star? Very plausible IMO and in the mind of the consumer he is buying a product affiliated with the NBA star and will pay the price that he believes those shoes should be worth because of that belief. In reality though, those shoes are not affiliated with the NBA star and you're paying more than you would be ready to pay if you knew that those shoes were not related to the nba star. With no trademark protections for the costumer this sort of things are inevitable and will in fact be routine in a free market. The free market would have no integrity as the subjective value of products would be skewed.

How it protects the business (the mark):

If I (Michael Jordan, not the nba star) make shitty shoes that fall apart 2 weeks after buying them and put the name Michael Jordan on it do you think that the reputation of the mark (the NBA star Michael Jordan) will increase or decrease as a consequence of it? Do you think that the reputation of the mark (the person, other products that are genuinely from the NBA star, books, ect) will not be affected? Do you think that the price of other products that are related to the mark will not be affected?

Do you see the distortion and how it diminishes the integrity of free markets in which trademarks don't exist and how it isn't first come first served when it comes to trademarks?

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, an