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

Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

impossiblehq.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 205 posts

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#121

Post by KSteffensen »

boston_clone wrote: post #102
KSteffensen wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is there an ethical problem in slaughtering an animal for meat if that animal has been raised in good conditions and the actual killing happens with a minimum of pain and fear for the animal? I get why foie gras is problematic, but I don't see the problem in a leg of lamb.

> Why is there an ethical problem in slaughtering In short, I think killing another living being that experiences suffering is wrong. There needs to be at least a base agreement on some ethics before diving into an ethical debate, and if you don't see a problem with needlessly killing animals, then this exchange will be worthless. Extend the reasoning of how we know it's wrong to raise and kill a human for our own co…

The Wikipedia article describes the various psychological mechanisms people use to avoid thinking about the fact that something they are doing involves something else getting killed. It does not provide arguments for why killing an animal for it's meat (or hide or other resource) is wrong.

A counterpoint to your 'raising humans for consumption' point which is equally extreme but in the opposite direction. How do you know plants do not feel suffering? After all studies show plants can sense surroundings and communicate with other plants even of other species.

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#122

Post by nefitty »

dhosek wrote: post #93
nefitty wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if there's a litigation betting market. I know there's prediction markets, but I'm wondering about a community dedicated to market making on any/all lawsuits.

I can see that becoming a serious moral hazard. If a judge or juror can make money on a lawsuit that they're deciding reaching a particular verdict, then there's a very real danger that they will do so. I'm pretty sure that in the grand scheme of things we want less opportunity for this sort of corruption of the judicial process, not more.

I'm honestly surprised I've never heard of litigation gambling. Considering your comment, it definitely seems like a horrible idea, so I'm not a proponent. My surprise is due to the fact that the degeneracy of the internet knows no bounds.

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#123

Post by jyxent »

ramblinrose wrote: post #80
zwieback wrote: post #55

Reading this: http://casefilingsalert.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Impos... it seems like Impossible X complained first and Impossible food is saying that they want it declared that they are not infringing on Impossible X's trademarks. IOW: little guy complained first and big guy is asking for relief that they are not doing anything wrong. Is there more to the story?

Thanks for sharing this. It looks like Impossible X (the defendant) was the first to sue to have Impossible Foods cease using their logo and trademark. And now Impossible Foods isn't budging and asserting their weight through counter-suit. It still feels very unfair even though the small guy started it; he's trying to protect his brand. He has supplied actual cases of confusion between the two companies according to…

Were there actually any cases of confusion? Impossible Food's filing states: Impossible X also referenced, without providing details, “several apparent instances of actual confusion.”

Unless there are more I'm missed, Impossible X's closest trademark covers nutritional supplements. They are arguing that allowing Impossible Foods to have a trademark on the following would cause confusion: "Providing information about recipes, ingredients and cooking information; providing an online computer database to consumers eaturing information about recipes, ingredients and cooking information". I don't really see any overlap.

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#125

Post by delecti »

will4274 wrote: post #120
boston_clone wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why is there an ethical problem in slaughtering In short, I think killing another living being that experiences suffering is wrong. There needs to be at least a base agreement on some ethics before diving into an ethical debate, and if you don't see a problem with needlessly killing animals, then this exchange will be worthless. Extend the reasoning of how we know it's wrong to raise and kill a human for our own co…

> In short, I think killing another living being that experiences suffering is wrong. It fails Kant's categorical imperative. Animals aren't going to believe that eating meat is wrong - and if we tried to prevent animals from eating meat, we'd kill a lot of them - not to mention it'd just be ridiculous. There's simply no way to include animals in universal law and maintain reciprocity. It's an internally inconsistent…

I don't agree that morals need to be reciprocated to be valid. It's not internally inconsistent to say I think it's immoral to kill things beings even if they wouldn't grant me or others the same.

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#126

Post by nitrogen »

datavirtue wrote: post #116
nitrogen wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

most people's annoyance with perceived "preachy" vegans comes from cognitive dissonance Let's consider other "preachy" sources to see if this argument holds weight. Consider replacing "vegans" in this sentence with morally motivated religious evangelists of any kind, or morally motivated pro-/anti-abortion activists, or morally motivated homophobes, or MS/Apple/GNU fanboys/girls. So no, it's not that people think the…

What if no one is guilt tripping but the other side is just uncomfortable as hell with their own easy acceptance of the status quo?

That right there is the textbook definition of guilt tripping. This line can be applied to literally every side of every argument. It has no content, no explanatory power, it's just another excuse for attempted manipulation.

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#127

Post by Alupis »

kaycebasques wrote: post #90
Ensorceled wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Go back to other discussions about veganism here on HN and you will see the common anti-vegan memes. You will also see a lot of outlandish claims about veganism, human diet and health and, food in general which is generally where the backlash starts. I've seen claims like "humans have evolved to be vegan", "beef only has vitamin b12 because of b12 supplements", "if you eat properly, your body will generate it's own…

I agree that some vegans also make outlandish claims but I think it's taking it too far to say that this is "generally where the backlash starts", because that implies that it's our fault / we caused it. There are a lot of vested interests that have purely selfish motives for attacking veganism and would do it regardless of any outlandish claims on the part of vegans.

> I agree that some vegans also make outlandish claims but I think it's taking it too far to say that this is "generally where the backlash starts", because that implies that it's our fault / we caused it.

There's the old vegan joke for a reason:

   How do you know someone is a vegan? They'll tell you all about it...
I think vegans get a bad rep because too often they feel the need to convert others to veganism too. Vegans aren't alone here, super devote religious people do this too, the guy in your office that just got into standing desks does it too, etc...

When people make a choice they believe is the one true way to do something, it's difficult to see others not join in - after all, you feel you've made the choice because it's healthy/will save your life/save the planet/whatever, how could you just watch others harm themselves?

Just live and let live... other people don't and shouldn't care if you choose to be a vegan or not.

Not targeting you in particular... just general observations. The "as a vegan..." line is about as tired as the "as a libertarian I believe X..." line. Nobody cares what you are or believe.

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#128

Post by delecti »

KSteffensen wrote: post #121
boston_clone wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why is there an ethical problem in slaughtering In short, I think killing another living being that experiences suffering is wrong. There needs to be at least a base agreement on some ethics before diving into an ethical debate, and if you don't see a problem with needlessly killing animals, then this exchange will be worthless. Extend the reasoning of how we know it's wrong to raise and kill a human for our own co…

The Wikipedia article describes the various psychological mechanisms people use to avoid thinking about the fact that something they are doing involves something else getting killed. It does not provide arguments for why killing an animal for it's meat (or hide or other resource) is wrong. A counterpoint to your 'raising humans for consumption' point which is equally extreme but in the opposite direction. How do you…

Even if plants feel suffering, fewer plants die from eating them directly than would if we had to pass their calories through an intermediary animal. It's closer to equivalent for chickens, but it's about an order of magnitude for cows.

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#129

Post by joelrunyon »

ramblinrose wrote: post #80
zwieback wrote: post #55

Reading this: http://casefilingsalert.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Impos... it seems like Impossible X complained first and Impossible food is saying that they want it declared that they are not infringing on Impossible X's trademarks. IOW: little guy complained first and big guy is asking for relief that they are not doing anything wrong. Is there more to the story?

Thanks for sharing this. It looks like Impossible X (the defendant) was the first to sue to have Impossible Foods cease using their logo and trademark. And now Impossible Foods isn't budging and asserting their weight through counter-suit. It still feels very unfair even though the small guy started it; he's trying to protect his brand. He has supplied actual cases of confusion between the two companies according to…

Respectfully. You may want to rewrite this.

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#130

Post by joelrunyon »

zwieback wrote: post #55

Reading this: http://casefilingsalert.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Impos... it seems like Impossible X complained first and Impossible food is saying that they want it declared that they are not infringing on Impossible X's trademarks. IOW: little guy complained first and big guy is asking for relief that they are not doing anything wrong. Is there more to the story?

You left out a pretty big part:

> ...That this Court declare that Impossible X’s trademark registrations in Registration Nos. 5376208, 5387588, and 5620625 be cancelled...

Post reply on HN