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

81–90 of 205 posts

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#81

Post by nefitty »

g_p wrote: post #66
maneesh wrote: post #61

When you look at the ImpossibleHQ vs Impossible Foods logo, it's obviously, without a doubt, a complete rip off. It's the sort of lawsuit that I would expect ImpossibleHQ to put against Impossible Foods, obviously not vice versa. It seems so clearly a rip off of the logo, that it's the kind of lawsuit that I want to invest in. Like -- I want to help fund a lawsuit against Impossible foods for millions that they rippe…

> Is there any past examples of investment/crowdfunding for a lawsuit, where the investors earn returns if a lawsuit succeeds? Sounds like you're describing litigation funding (a fairly established market). You'd probably want to back it by insurance to cover the investors and party bringing the action against adverse costs exposure. Litigation funding is often provided by insurers anyway as a result, as they can put…

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.

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#82

Post by MisterTea »

kaycebasques wrote: post #16

As a vegan myself this is very unfortunate because we are already easy targets and subject to a lot of prejudice. Impossible Meat bullying a small company might unleash a backlash of anti-vegan sentiment that can take on a life of its own. Make no mistake it has been there all along. Go back to other discussions about veganism here on HN and you will see the common anti-vegan memes. But when you're one of the leading…

> But when you're one of the leading brands of a minority movement like veganism

Neither you nor impossible foods speak for the vegan movement. Most of my vegan friends do not eat this fake garbage nor would they ever make foolish claims like this.

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#83

Post by jfengel »

4eleven7 wrote: post #60
delecti wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything I've seen suggests to me that most people's annoyance with perceived "preachy" vegans comes from cognitive dissonance around being forced to confront that vegans have a good point. Why confront real issues when you can make a bacon joke and say "oh, I could never give up cheese"? It's like when talking with someone who is very disciplined about exercise. Many will say something like "wow you're so lucky to…

Vegans do have a good point, however, for the majority of the population food is just something that they crave, eat for taste, or because it is thrust in their face daily by corporations. They aren't doing it for the sake of killing, and therefore the point that vegans make isn't something people consider nor care for. I personally think your diet should be based on nutrition, with morals and the environment followi…

A nutritious vegan diet is not difficult. The hardest thing about it is that you mostly have to cook it yourself, since so many restaurants offer few (or no) vegan choices.

Fortunately, that's gradually improving. And it's a good idea for people to eat less restaurant meals if they're really interested in nutrition. It's hard to claim that nutrition is one's #1 priority when one is eating 1,500 or more calories per meal and few vegetables or whole grains.

Veganism isn't automatically nutritious. It can be, just as meat diets can be -- but most meat eaters don't. Either can be nutritious with planning and education.

As you say, your diet should absolutely start with nutrition. But given that you could eat nutritiously either way, you should indeed let your ethics guide you -- which includes both animal welfare and the environment as a whole.

But in particular, it'll be very hard to claim that nutrition is top priority if you're frequently eating Big Macs and never eating vegetables or grains.

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#84

Post by KSteffensen »

kaycebasques wrote: post #48
jrm4 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Black person here. I don't think (though I'm not going to say I'm 100% certain) that the word "prejudice" is best here? You (very probably) made a choice to be a certain way, here. So, the "judice" part is correct, and people should perhaps be nicer, but this doesn't feel like the right word.

Thank you for the feedback. I understand your point. I was going off a dictionary definition along these lines: > preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience But I totally get that prejudice has connotations here that make it inappropriate for me as a white man to use

Why is it inappropriate for a white man to use the word prejudice?

Isn't any sort of negatively biased opinion prejudice, regardless of what it's against be it gender, race, dietary choices, religion or anything else?

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#85

Post by MisterTea »

jrm4 wrote: post #40
kaycebasques wrote: post #16

As a vegan myself this is very unfortunate because we are already easy targets and subject to a lot of prejudice. Impossible Meat bullying a small company might unleash a backlash of anti-vegan sentiment that can take on a life of its own. Make no mistake it has been there all along. Go back to other discussions about veganism here on HN and you will see the common anti-vegan memes. But when you're one of the leading…

Black person here. I don't think (though I'm not going to say I'm 100% certain) that the word "prejudice" is best here? You (very probably) made a choice to be a certain way, here. So, the "judice" part is correct, and people should perhaps be nicer, but this doesn't feel like the right word.

> Black person here.

No disrespect but what does being black have to do with the usage of the word prejudice? Because the parent you responded to used it correctly.

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#86

Post by SllX »

kaycebasques wrote: post #44
SllX wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The end goal of the radical vegan moralists is to legally reshape my cuisine and the cuisine of the majority of people to match their preferences. Not all vegans share that view but often independently come very close to it or could still be swayed into a more radical world view. Deflecting is a polite way of terminating a conversation that can otherwise get very ugly and end friendships and/or further entrench and r…

It seems like you're strawmanning and radicalizing our conversation here a bit by focusing on radical vegan moralists. As a vegan of 2 years I can tell you that a supermajority of the vegans I know would not endorse *legally* reshaping anyone's cuisine. The radical segment of any social movement is usually the minority. Your argumentation here seems similar to completely denouncing Christianity, Political Party XYZ,…

Note that I gave no indication that they were more than a fringe and pointed out that they were not well representative of vegans as a whole. Radicals are by definition the fringe and don’t need additional qualifiers, particularly in a sentence that was loaded with them (vegan moralists are also not representative of vegans; many vegans are vegan for pure dietary reasons or personal preference).

My real point was this if you read past the first paragraph: if you care about politeness, keeping friendships and not hammering people in the face with what you actually think, you know, all the things that can further radicalize people, then deflection is the best course of action. This deflection should not be viewed as an implicit concession that somebody has a good point.

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#87

Post by selimthegrim »

MisterBastahrd wrote: post #62
Mordisquitos wrote: post #39

This very much reinforces my scepticism and distrust towards this trend of branded so-called "meat-substitutes" and "plant-based cheeses" etc. I am not a vegetarian or a vegan but, if I were, I would simply eat vegetables, legumes, pasta, rice, bread, fruits, nuts, you name it. It's not so hard, it's just normal food that has always existed and has always been a part of my diet anyway. People have eaten non-meat prod…

Modern meat substitutes exist because texture is a huge part of eating and also people tend to go with the cuisine they're familiar with. Stocking a kitchen for the first time to cook Indian food is also a bit pricy. There are a lot of spices that you need to buy if you want to do it right, and they aren't cheap.

They aren’t cheap because you’re not buying them at an ethnic store.

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#88

Post by dragonwriter »

jrm4 wrote: post #40
kaycebasques wrote: post #16

As a vegan myself this is very unfortunate because we are already easy targets and subject to a lot of prejudice. Impossible Meat bullying a small company might unleash a backlash of anti-vegan sentiment that can take on a life of its own. Make no mistake it has been there all along. Go back to other discussions about veganism here on HN and you will see the common anti-vegan memes. But when you're one of the leading…

Black person here. I don't think (though I'm not going to say I'm 100% certain) that the word "prejudice" is best here? You (very probably) made a choice to be a certain way, here. So, the "judice" part is correct, and people should perhaps be nicer, but this doesn't feel like the right word.

“prejudice” has nothing to do with whether the prejudgement is based on an innate feature or a choice.

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#89

Post by kaycebasques »

MisterTea wrote: post #85
jrm4 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Black person here. I don't think (though I'm not going to say I'm 100% certain) that the word "prejudice" is best here? You (very probably) made a choice to be a certain way, here. So, the "judice" part is correct, and people should perhaps be nicer, but this doesn't feel like the right word.

> Black person here. No disrespect but what does being black have to do with the usage of the word prejudice? Because the parent you responded to used it correctly.

There's a lot of connotations to that word related to racism. I have no problem with the original commenter calling out that it may not be the best word to use.

Re: Impossible food sues to cancel earlier trademark owners

#90

Post by kaycebasques »

Ensorceled wrote: post #76
kaycebasques wrote: post #16

As a vegan myself this is very unfortunate because we are already easy targets and subject to a lot of prejudice. Impossible Meat bullying a small company might unleash a backlash of anti-vegan sentiment that can take on a life of its own. Make no mistake it has been there all along. Go back to other discussions about veganism here on HN and you will see the common anti-vegan memes. But when you're one of the leading…

> 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.
Post reply on HN