The Daily Paul has been archived.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: Ignorance doesn't have to be protected by a governing body,

(See in situ)

Ignorance doesn't have to be protected by a governing body,

(like a government for example), it can be arbitrated by a private entity just like courts. At core, trademarks are for product identification. No trademark and you inevitably protect widespread counter fitting, it's not desirable and it would just fall apart since no amount of knowledge would protect the consumer because there would be no consequence for counter fitters and the practice would just grow like weed. Some consumers will be lucky enough to find the right information in order to purchase the brand they intended to buy some won't and it's those that won't that would allow the counter fitters to still be in business. Also, just the fact of consuming will not become as widespread IMO because of all the hassle in getting the right information about the right product and because of the fear of the traps in such trademark-free free market.

Furthermore, it would skew the demand vs supply mechanism for any given brand since the counter fitter is in direct competition with the brand that is trademarked.

You cannot have a free market with integrity where no trademark protections exist, at one point the whole house of card would collapse just like what happens to anything which is based on lies.

For your question:
"What if your name was Michael Jordan and you made better shoes than the NBA brand? Who do the trademark protections work for then, the famous person or the unknown with a better product?"

Then the loser in this situation would be person that made the quality shoes (not the NBA star, the other Michael Jordan) as the NBA star would reap the benefits in good reputation of the quality product without him actually making that product. Are you saying that it's preferable that way? Another scenario is that they can both benefit: the nba star from the enhanced reputation as a result of the good product that he didin't even make AND ALSO, on the other hand, the maker of the shoes that unsuspectingly reaps the benefits of Michael Jordan's stardom and is shown in an increase in sales. Either way, the consumer is being deceived but remember this second scenario is only possible if the shoes are in fact a good product, if the shoes are a bad product this is not the case.

"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