I'm all for getting stinking rich but I'm trying to remember the real rules too. Not crushing the little people is one and not making enemies of entire nation states by dissing their flag is probably another one.

Zoe, suppose you wrote a book and became and beloved famous author. You wouldn't want some person who didn't care about writing to put your name on a book to take anbdvatage of your work and your ideas would you?

No.

Zoe, do you have a link to an article about the McDonald's lawsuit? I wanted to find out what the details were, and I tried googling, but I couldn't find any good sources.

Not crushing the little people is one and not making enemies of entire nation states by dissing their flag is probably another one.

yet again, I will try to make the distinction clear.

They are prevented from using the colors of the flag to sell oil in Britain.

That's all.

There's no dissing of a nation, a culture, a flag, or a heritage. Just one thing. A trademark.

Zoe, do you have a link to an article about the McDonald's lawsuit? I wanted to find out what the details were, and I tried googling, but I couldn't find any good sources.

No, truth is my sources are hearsay and urban myth.

Shawn, when I talk about corporate law having gone crazy, I am critizing law as it stands. And the original intent was as I have stated - trademark to prevent fraud, copyright to encourage innovation. I am not a fan of original intent for the sake of orginal intent. That is, I am not in principle against the law evolving in a direction the writers of some ancestoral version did not envision. But in this particular case, I think the orginal intent made sense, and what it has evolved into is insane.

And in terms of the nature of property rights: in ordinary speech, if you have only one right, it tends not to be thought of as a property right. Generaly the term "property" represents bundles of rights. But I won't fight on that issue. My main point is that our current system is insane, and that much weaker trademark and copyright system makes more sense.

And it is because I think current law suppresses inovation, and is much stronger than need for it's legitamate purposes - not because I agree that national identity should override other rights.

In other words I think the court was right in saying that Petrobras could not use a logo that was easily confused with BP. I think the ruling agains the colors Green and Yellow and the Brazilian flag which looks nothing like the BP logo was nuts. (And I'm talking about compared to what is reasonable - not what is legal. I'm making a case against the current law.)

They are prevented from using the colors of the flag to sell oil in Britain.

That's all.

There's no dissing of a nation, a culture, a flag, or a heritage. Just one thing. A trademark.

So people aren't sitting in their living rooms in Brazil thinking bloody British who do they think they are?

No, truth is my sources are hearsay and urban myth.

The closest I could find from a reliable source was that they sued a sandwich stand called McMunchies.

not because I agree with Zoe about how national identity should override other rights.

I don't think I said that, I said that that would be the basis of offence to Brazil -in different words. If no-one in Brazil gives a crap why raise the example???

So people aren't sitting in their living rooms in Brazil thinking bloody British who do they think they are?

Well, if you and Gar are outraged, it's more than half likely they are. But nevertheless, the British government has every right to decide what to trademark in their own country, and well, the Brazilians don't get much of a say in that.

Whether or not they're pissed does not mean that refusal to extend a mark or protect one is a diss of a entire nation.