Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Whiskey Rebellion

brokenpianoforpresident.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 112 posts

Re: The Whiskey Rebellion

#11

Post by esbwhat »

Anechoic wrote: post #8
esbwhat wrote: post #4

not as nice as they were in the case of ilovejackdaniels.com: http://www.addedbytes.com/blog/what-happened-to-ilovejackdan...

In April of 2008, the people responsible for the Jack Daniel's trademark contacted me and asked me to stop using the name "ILoveJackDaniels", and URL "ilovejackdaniels.com", for my site, and to change the logo. They asked "Dave" to stop using the trademark and he did. Seems nice to me, unless you have evidence of strong-arm tactics that Dave didn't discuss on that page.

It's definitely not the worst, but I don't think they should have asked him at all, and (more importantly) let him redirect the old site for more than a year.

Re: The Whiskey Rebellion

#12

Post by excuse-me »

carsongross wrote: post #3

A great product coupled with decency? It's such a crazy idea... it just might work.

And it's worth how much in free advertising and brand image?

Assuming that JD is actually owned by some mega-corp fizzy beer maker (they are not "brewers"!) it's a clever way of giving the impression that they are still good ol' boys.

Compare that to the Disney corps hunting down of every sick children's hospital that paints cartoon characters on it's walls.

Re: The Whiskey Rebellion

#14

Post by excuse-me »

krogsgard wrote: post #5

It baffles me why more companies can't be like this. Surely some testing could provide data on success ratio of sending "friendly" c&d letters versus the normal threatening kind. I suspect people are much more likely to play nice in this kind of scenario (especially when the reason for the c&d is not as strong), but why not at least put it to the test?

Because their lawyers aren't this smart.

Assuming it ever came to court, it comes down to who the jury likes. Compare this letter being read out as evidence to a standard Disney-style "we will wipe you and your family from the face of the Earth" (for copying a story that we copied from Christian-Anderson) - who are th jury going to feel for?

Re: The Whiskey Rebellion

#15

Post by true_religion »

excuse-me wrote: post #12
carsongross wrote: post #3

A great product coupled with decency? It's such a crazy idea... it just might work.

And it's worth how much in free advertising and brand image? Assuming that JD is actually owned by some mega-corp fizzy beer maker (they are not "brewers"!) it's a clever way of giving the impression that they are still good ol' boys. Compare that to the Disney corps hunting down of every sick children's hospital that paints cartoon characters on it's walls.

Jack-Daniels is owned by Brown-Forman which specializes in spirits and not beer. The least alcoholic lines they run are wine.

Re: The Whiskey Rebellion

#17

Post by citricsquid »

excuse-me wrote: post #14
krogsgard wrote: post #5

It baffles me why more companies can't be like this. Surely some testing could provide data on success ratio of sending "friendly" c&d letters versus the normal threatening kind. I suspect people are much more likely to play nice in this kind of scenario (especially when the reason for the c&d is not as strong), but why not at least put it to the test?

Because their lawyers aren't this smart. Assuming it ever came to court, it comes down to who the jury likes. Compare this letter being read out as evidence to a standard Disney-style "we will wipe you and your family from the face of the Earth" (for copying a story that we copied from Christian-Anderson) - who are th jury going to feel for?

I would hope to all that is holy that a jury wouldn't give 2 shits what the letter says. It should be about whether or not the person infringed on a trademark, not who has the nicest smile.

It's not about lawyer's being smart, it's about most people being vindictive asshats. If someone is willing to infringe on your trademark it's most likely that they're not willing to roll over and take any polite request to stop. If you send them a letter asking politely for them to stop and they ignore the letter you then have to send another (serious) letter, which is double the lawyer time.

Sure, in a few cases like this one in makes sense because it's not a clear case of infringement and it's more likely a misguided person than a vindictive person, but in more obvious cases (like someone selling "Jack Danielson's" with the same presentation style) it makes no sense to be nice.

Re: The Whiskey Rebellion

#18

Post by cwp »

excuse-me wrote: post #12
carsongross wrote: post #3

A great product coupled with decency? It's such a crazy idea... it just might work.

And it's worth how much in free advertising and brand image? Assuming that JD is actually owned by some mega-corp fizzy beer maker (they are not "brewers"!) it's a clever way of giving the impression that they are still good ol' boys. Compare that to the Disney corps hunting down of every sick children's hospital that paints cartoon characters on it's walls.

Yeah. They're behaving like reasonable human beings to fool us into thinking they're reasonable human beings. But they can't fool us. Imagine the evil they could accomplish if we gave them the benefit of the doubt.

Re: The Whiskey Rebellion

#19

Post by jakejake »

citricsquid wrote: post #17
excuse-me wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because their lawyers aren't this smart. Assuming it ever came to court, it comes down to who the jury likes. Compare this letter being read out as evidence to a standard Disney-style "we will wipe you and your family from the face of the Earth" (for copying a story that we copied from Christian-Anderson) - who are th jury going to feel for?

I would hope to all that is holy that a jury wouldn't give 2 shits what the letter says. It should be about whether or not the person infringed on a trademark, not who has the nicest smile. It's not about lawyer's being smart, it's about most people being vindictive asshats. If someone is willing to infringe on your trademark it's most likely that they're not willing to roll over and take any polite request to stop.…

You would hope so but, sadly when you do participate in a trial (if you get selected for a jury or are involved in the trial) you'll see that human emotions are a major factor.

Re: The Whiskey Rebellion

#20

Post by cwp »

krogsgard wrote: post #5

It baffles me why more companies can't be like this. Surely some testing could provide data on success ratio of sending "friendly" c&d letters versus the normal threatening kind. I suspect people are much more likely to play nice in this kind of scenario (especially when the reason for the c&d is not as strong), but why not at least put it to the test?

It probably has to do with the nature of the infringement. I doubt they'd be so friendly with a distiller that was selling "Jack Dawson" whisky with a visually similar label. The book cover isn't harmless, but it's not malicious, either.
Post reply on HN