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.

my sources are hearsay and urban myth

For future reference -- hearsay and urban myth don't hold much water in an arena where you're quite likely to be debating with lawyers and proto-lawyers.

As for the J'can lawsuit:

The defending company, McDonald's Corporation Limited ("the Jamaican company") was formed in Jamaica in 1971. Since then a small restaurant called McDonalds which sells traditional Jamaican dishes in addition to fast food has been operating in Kingston. In 1994 McDonald's announced they intended to open restaurants in Jamaica for the first time. In September 1995, McDonald's opened their first restaurant in Montego Bay. A month later they served a Statement of Claim on the Jamaican company seeking an injunction to prevent them operating under its current name. The Jamaican company has responded by seeking an injunction preventing McDonald's opening any restaurant in Kingston under the name McDonald's.

On 5th July [1996], the Jamaican High Court granted an injunction banning McDonalds US from opening outlets in Kingston, Jamaica pending the full hearing of the action which is not expected to take place until 1998. McDonalds were also ordered to pay the Jamaican company's legal costs.

It was a brief stand against megacorporations, but it sure makes me giggle.

For future references -- hearsay and urban myth don't hold much water in an arena where you're quite likely to be debating with lawyers and proto-lawyers.

If I were debating in an arena where an actual difference could be made then I'd make a greater effort.

Do proto-lawyers wear silly hats so we can tell them apart?

God bless Jamaica. But I'm sure you'll tell me She already did.

If I were debating in an arena where an actual difference could be made then I'd make a greater effort.

Ouch. I think I've been dismissed.

God bless Jamaica. But I'm sure you'll tell me She already did.

Sometimes, it's the only explanation.