Re: [ga] Unfair?

["Mark C. Langston" <skritch@home.com>]

On 16 December 1999, "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com> wrote:


>Michael,
>sigh,) I'll face days or weeks of postings about how devious and underhanded
>I am as a representative of a large corporation, but I will try this anyway.
>
>Gathering up the interests of users is a challenge. And yes, individuals are
>extremely important, but the good of society sometimes overrides... that is
>the genesis of the U.S. constitution, isn't' it? 


The "society" the Constitution is written for was formed by individuals who
were sick of exactly this type of (non)representation.


>
>Our foregathers decided to do the common good thing, rather than maintain
>the individuals forever thing...You might not like it, but business is being
>conducted on the internet and that means stability issues, consumer fraud,
>and trademark protection are relevant issues. 

Our forefathers wrote many a rule that applied only to white, landowning
males above the age of consent.


>You can categorize me as only concerned about big business. but you are
>missing a point which I know you will care about because you care about
>individuals: there's a lot of consumer fraud associated with the misuse of
>trademarked names. We are fighting that and protecting consumers... you
>don't want to see that grow... 

Unless you speak as a consumer, or have hard data on this "confusion", 
please refrain from making such assertions.  I'm in contact with a
colleague of mine from .au, who does solid, scientific psychological
research on how consumers use brand names.  THAT is a position from which
to make claims about consumer confusion over brand names.  Making
such claims from a biased position of one who represents a brand that
stands to lose money over such confusion is disingenuous.


>
>Can't we share some concerns about the individual consumers? 
>


As soon as you get in touch with the average consumer, yes.

-- 
Mark C. Langston
mark@bitshift.org
Systems Admin
San Jose, CA