Sometimes they don’t even bother to push their own knockoffs through special channels such as outlet stores, they simply move production to a different factory which uses cheaper materials and less quality control, and carry on selling the gadgets through their usual channels, eating up and destroying their own brand. Which leads to the question, what does a “brand name” or “trademark” really mean? If you’re buying cost-reduced crap because you’re underemployed, underpaid, you have no savings and no home equity, and your money is eaten up by income tax, sales tax and property tax then do you really care whether you bought “genuine” or “fake” cost-reduced crap?

It’s the same old lesson: inflation destroys people, destroys companies, destroys reputations, destroys morality, destroys civilization.

You mean you just now figured out what I meant when I said this is a trademark problem?

No Wildberry, my point is that you probably do not understand your own argument.

I think that should tell you something about how prepared you are to defend your anti-IP position. You don’t seem to appreciate the distinction between copyrights and trademarks.

I posed a clear question. Where’s the answer? Nowhere. Instead you start complaining again.

Would you care to explain why this is true?

I explained it several times already, only for you to ignore it. Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

You might recall that many months ago, I said that if you cannot provide an example of interaction with ideas without involvement of physical property, that proves that you are contradicting yourself.</blockquote.

Would you care to explain why this is true?

You mean you just now figured out what I meant when I said this is a trademark problem?

I think that should tell you something about how prepared you are to defend your anti-IP position. You don’t seem to appreciate the distinction between copyrights and trademarks.

Perhaps you and Matthew could team up as study partners.

With all due respect, this is rediculous. If you think there is no distinction between the idea of “sun” and the novel, “The Sun Also Rises” then I would like to hear how you would argue that no reasonable, rational person can tell the difference.

An another approach would be for you to familiarize yourself with the legal distinction made in the copyright statute and case law, or read a book about copyrights that gives you a thurough understanding.

Can you imagine a “debate” on AET between, say Mises and Hayek, and someone that has never cracked a book on the subject, asking in a blog “So, what exactly to dyou mean by praxeology? You have never deliliated where sociology ends and praxeology begins”.

If you write a book the act of writing was the cause of the original manuscript of the book. In the case of a trademark the basis is registering with the government.

And even more relevant, in the act of copying, the original is the actual cause of the copy. The proximate cause is the volitional act of the copier.

A trademark is not “caused” by registering. A trade mark is caused by the manufacturer, for example, creating a relationship between the mark and his goods. That is what “causes” a trademark.

As for the rest, you seem to be confused between the meaning of copyright and trademark.

Finally, whether you believe ownership rights are legitimate has nothing to do with the conflating of distinctions in order to make that case. If you have a case, it should be possible to make it without distorting the meaning of words to suit your purpose.

I have never seen any argument that demonstrates that there is no actual distinction betwen “ideas” and “an original work or authorship”. Care to be the first?

MERE IDEAS CANNOT BE OWNED.

You might recall that many months ago, I said that if you cannot provide an example of interaction with ideas without involvement of physical property, that proves that you are contradicting yourself. I was claiming that if I was wrong, it would be trivial to refute me by providing a counterexample. You tried to wriggle out of that very hard, to the extent where you started denying elementary logic, until you started ignoring it.

Now you admit that I was correct all along. By IP, you do not mean the ownership of abstract concepts. You mean the ownership of physical goods, which already belong to someone else. There is no third option.

You’re screwed now.

I disagree, since the use of someone else’s mark is a misrepresentation of the origin of the product, one of the main purposes of trademark protection.

Yet, you fail to provide an explanation why this affects rights of anyone else than the buyer. The “trademark owner” is not a party to the contract, nor does he own the good being traded. Why is his opinion relevant in any way? I’ll give you a hint:
- because the trade is causally related to a good the “trademark owner” produced
- because the “trademark owner” does not like it

I.e. we’re back to the question that you refuse to answer.

The issue is not causality, whatever you might mean in this instance by “causality”.

so, the problem is not that someone is producing/selling a copied bag, but that they are using the same logo as the original bag?

The issue here is that some are saying that the ONLY issue is fraud between buyer and seller. I disagree, since the use of someone else’s mark is a misrepresentation of the origin of the product, one of the main purposes of trademark protection.

In addition, the mark owner has an investment that has resulted in consumer good will towards that brand. To label your products with that brand is a taking, causing harm to the mark holder.

What has been disproved, and where is the switch?

What if a company would sell no name bags that look and feel the same as the original and shipped the brand name tag separately for the buyer to place on the bag ?

Who’s the counterfeiter now ? And such a stratagem would make it across the border easily.

A bag is a bag, right ? If you insist that it’s written Channel on it, no problem, that can be arranged, I’ve got a hi-liter pen.