Slashdot Log In
Utah Trying To Restrict Keyword Advertising ... Again
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Thu Mar 05, 2009 12:31 PM
from the aren't-they-all-porn-junkies-in-utah dept.
from the aren't-they-all-porn-junkies-in-utah dept.
Eric Goldman writes "The Utah legislature has tried to restrict keyword advertising twice before, with disastrous results. In 2004, Utah tried to ban keyword advertising in adware; that law was declared unconstitutional. In 2007, Utah tried to regulate competitive keyword advertising; after a firestorm of protests, Utah repealed the law in 2008. Despite this track record, Utah is trying to regulate keyword advertising a third time. HB 450 would allow trademark owners to block competitors from displaying certain types of keyword ads. In practice, this law is just another attempt by the Utah legislature to enact a law that doesn't help consumers at all but does help trademark owners suppress their online competition."
Related Stories
[+]
Your Rights Online: Utah Bans Keyword Advertising 271 comments
Eric Goldman writes "Last month, Utah passed a law banning keyword advertising. Rep. Dan Eastman, the Utah legislator who sponsored the law, believes competitive keyword advertising is the equivalent of corporate identity theft, causing searchers to be (in his words) 'carjacked' and 'shanghaied' by advertisers. He also takes a swipe at the EFF, dismissing its critique of the law as 'criticism from the fringes.'"
[+]
Utah's Third Attempt To Regulate Keywords Fails 68 comments
Eric Goldman writes "Earlier this month, we discussed HB 450, the Utah Legislature's third attempt to regulate keyword advertising after the past two efforts failed miserably. The latest attempt barely passed the Utah House, aided in part by a 'yes' vote from Representative Jennifer Seelig, who also happens to be a lobbyist-employee of 1-800 Contacts, the principal advocate of HB 450. Nevertheless, HB 450 died in the Utah Senate without a vote when the Utah Legislature adjourned last night. Despite the seeming good news, it would be surprising if the Utah Legislature didn't try a fourth time to regulate keyword advertising in a future session."
[+]
Appeals Court Rules Against Google On Keyword Ads 39 comments
Eric Goldman writes "The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Google in Rescuecom v. Google (PDF), a trademark infringement lawsuit over Google's keyword advertising practices. The court said: 'The Complaint's allegations that Google's recommendation and sale of Rescuecom's mark to Google's advertisers, so as to trigger the appearance of their advertisements and links in a manner likely to cause consumer confusion when a Google user launches a search of Rescuecom's trademark, properly alleges a claim under the Lanham Act.' While this result hampers Google's ability to end trademark lawsuits early, the case is still at an early stage and Google could still win."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
remove the Mormons tag (Score:4, Insightful)
Please remove the "Mormons" tag. Not all Mormons think that way. San Francisco has liberal Mormons, Texas has conservative Mormons, and there are libertarians dispersed throughout.
Re:remove the Mormons tag (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:remove the Mormons tag (Score:5, Insightful)
It would have dropped off on its own - now you all have made sure anyone who comes along the thread later will know it was there. Sometimes it is worth just chilling out and seeing where things go.
Parent
Re:remove the Mormons tag (Score:4, Informative)
Those tags are user generated. Do you think it is also worthwhile to reply to every comment troll?
Parent
Re:remove the Mormons tag (Score:4, Informative)
What is bigoted about adding a "mormon" tag when over 80% of the Utah state legislature are members of the LDS church?
Parent
Re:remove the Mormons tag (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that Mormonism is the Scientology of early America. Anyone here who rallies against the COS when they do...what they do, but gives slack to the LDS, has been deluded by the idea that "real" religions are sacrosanct and shouldn't be attacked for any reason.
Bashing a religion is not bigotry, because your choice of religion is your own. Most monotheists believe that in order to have fulfillment as a sentient being, you need to be personally adored by the omnipotent, eternal creator of existence itself. To me that seems slightly self-centered. Christians worship and purport to love a god that demanded that his own son be brutally tortured and executed if he didn't want to see his favorite race of created beings done the same way. Mormonism and Scientology are even worse because they haven't been around long enough to weed out the people at the top who know that it's all lies but continue to profit from it anyway. Pointing out the flaws in that sort of thinking, or even making blanket statements about how stupid those religions are, is not bigotry, it's pointing out that a set of ideas is stupid. Not only completely different, but absolutely reasonable.
Parent
Re:remove the Mormons tag (Score:5, Insightful)
And yet you post as an Anonymous Coward. I think people have an obligation to stand up and say this without fear of reprisal. Because if you are only willing to say something without attaching yourself to it, you're really killing your own qualifications.
That said, I endorse the post above.
Parent
Re:remove the Mormons tag (Score:5, Funny)
You have experienced the horror of keyword advertising!
Parent
Re:remove the Mormons tag (Score:5, Insightful)
+1. It's like having a story about water melons and adding a "black people" tag.
Actually, it's like having a story about laws regarding information technology and someones persecution complex [wikipedia.org] turns the thread about their religion, the places where it is practiced, and the vrious shades it comes in.
Parent
Re:remove the Mormons tag (Score:5, Funny)
Please remove the "Mormons" tag. Not all Mormons think that way. San Francisco has liberal Mormons, Texas has conservative Mormons, and there are libertarians dispersed throughout.
Oh, c'mon, Dude!! What's wrong with you? Geez... Christian-bashing is the last socially acceptable form of bigotry left to Americans, and now you want to take that away, too?
Parent
Re:remove the Mormons tag (Score:4, Insightful)
If you consider Jesus holy
By that standard, Jews and Muslims are Christians too!
Parent
Re:remove the Mormons tag (Score:5, Funny)
I think the difference boils down like this:
Parent
Re:remove the Mormons tag (Score:4, Interesting)
Ah, but you're not supposed to be proud in your belief, but humble in it. After all, did not St. James Buffett describe the seven deadly sins thusly:
For what it's worth, I know two Mormon couples. They're very nice people, they don't have multiple wives, and are very active in the community. They don't proselytize on the evils of keyword advertising. And that proves this isn't "a Mormon thing" because, as we all know, the plural of "anecdote" is "data".
Parent
Re:remove the Mormons tag (Score:5, Insightful)
But most Mormons do. They are a fairly conservative bunch on the whole. The story is about a conservative, Republican, Mormon dominated legislature trying to get the internet to play by corporate rules. The "mormon" tag is just as appropriate as a "republican" or "conservative" or "corporations" tag on the story.
People can legitimately object to stereotypes and prejudices. But sometimes those stereotypes are things that are legitimately true and that need to be said, even if they do offend. Not allowing this leads to situations in which we now find ourselves [canada.com]. According to the UN, we can now no longer "defame" religions or their followers, no matter how much we disagree with their beliefs or practices.
Forget the rough stuff. Mormons, by dogma, can't drink coffee and tea. I personally think this is a stupid prohibition. Muslims, again by dogma, can't draw pictures of Mohammad. I personally think this a really stupid prohibition. Catholics( especially in third world countries), again by dogma, can't use condoms. I personally think this is an appallingly stupid prohibition which costs lives every single day. I think the people who follow these prohibitions are being unreasonable, inconsiderate and irresponsible.
My opinions here could land me in jail in many countries for being "bigoted" or for "stereotyping" or for "hate speech". Some people will say that I'm tarnishing the image of whole groups of people, or that not all people in those groups support these prohibitions. Tell that to the people living in Utah, or Saudi Arabia, or Italy, who have to put up with prohibitions imposed on them in the name of the silent religious majority.
In conclusion, it is not automatically "Wrong(TM)" to stereotype a religious community. In fact, when that communities religious practices start to infringe on others liberties, it is right to stereotype, lampoon and indeed "defame" those practices, and to force that community to reflect upon itself. Religion should never be except from criticism, and especially satire.
Parent
Process should be fair. (Score:3, Interesting)
Businesses should be able to protect their trademarks but the process should be fair. Little guys who don't compete in the same market should not get squashed.
Re:Process should be fair. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, it's one thing if a car dealership who is not Toyota starts buying "Toyota" as a keyword. Arguably this is similar to buying Toyota.com and could be misleading to customers.
Totally disagree. If someone gets a consumer reports article that says "Better than a Toyota!", they should be able to promote that information with a keyword ad (among a host of other examples). As long as you're not tricking buyers into thinking some product is a Toyota when it's not, it should be fair game and free speech.
So, Google will have a disclaimer... (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems a sensible restriction (Score:3, Funny)
It seems Utah merely wants to prevent advertisers from getting married to too many keywords.
Not as clear cut as you might think. (Score:3, Insightful)
First off, I note that the "mormon" tag on the article. If there were a quote from a black leader, I wonder, would you tag the article as "black"?
I would not be so quick to bury this guy in your haste to have weaker trademarks. There is an interesting question, buried in this article. It is, what does a trademark actually buy? A trademark is a sort of a definition of an invented word, administered today by the government. A search word is as also a definition of a word, administered by a private corporation and sold to the highest bidder.
When Linux trademarks "Linux", it is to say that he has the rights to the definition of this word in some way as it pertains to his product. But, if I buy Linux on Google, then, I get the right to define the word by having my definition be placed in a preferred position.
Thus, you almost have to view trademark as a contest between the federal first come first serve word ownership mechanism, and, a private enterprise word as an auction mechanism advanced by the likes of Google.
There is a real dividing line between corporation and state, and the irony here is that those who would argue that trademarks should be less powerful by definition argue that words should be auctioned, rather than licensed, and conversely, those who argue for strong government trademarks ultimately argue that the government should control more the meaning of words rather than the free market.
I would be willing to bet that leftists who casually seek to undermine business by eliminating trademarks might be well advised to rethink that position, as they should so many others. I can't imagine that they of all people would really want a world where the definitions of words are decided by the highest bidder. It runs the risk of undermining everything that they stand for, and for that reason I'd have to conclude that people rushing to digitally behead "the mormon" might well consider that the "the mormon" is doing them a favor.
The unfortunate reality of government (Score:4, Insightful)
Utah? (Score:4, Funny)
This is a state where 58% of its inhabitants claim membership in a single religion, and the overwhelming majority of the legislature comes from this demographic. They're not exactly known for their progressive views on technology. Might I suggest we kindly totally and completely ignore this state? They're clearly out of touch with not just reality, but the rest of the country as well. At worst, Utah-nians just won't be able to go online, and golly gee what a shame that would be. -_- Now go ahead and mod me to hell for stating the obvious. Or can we at least re-classify this under "It's funny, laugh." ?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You mean, like, when the mormons invented WordPerfect, one of the first great Word Processors, or pioneered networking with Novell, the first great networking company?
Whoah. Hey, did you, like, know Robert Oppenheimer worked on the Manhattan Project and studied Hinduism? So, like, the entire religion of Hinduism can claim it invented the nuke! That's, like, totally and completely awesome! Dude!!!!!! -_- /Sarcasm.
Trademark (Score:4, Informative)
A trademark is a sort of a definition of an invented word, administered today by the government.
Not exactly. The term "Windows" is trademarked, should Microsoft be the only entity to be able to purchase "windows?" of course not.
There is a real dividing line between corporation and state, and the irony here is that those who would argue that trademarks should be less powerful by definition argue that words should be auctioned, rather than licensed, and conversely, those who argue for strong government trademarks ultimately argue that the government should control more the meaning of words rather than the free market.
Neither of these arguments are correct.
Trademarks are names and logos under which businesses trade. The reason why they are protected is to protect the reputation of the institution that holds them. Believe it or not, there is "fair use" of trade marks. It is perfectly legal to use someone else's trademark if you using only enough of it to identify the business.
For instance. A car dealership named "Planet Subaru" has the trademark "Planet Subaru." As a dissatisfied customer, I can create a website named "www.planetsubarusucks.com." I can even use the trademarked name "Planet Subaru" on this site as long as there is no confusion that I am associated with them, only as much of the trademark as necessary to identify the business, and that I do not intend to trade on their mark.
It is perfectly legitimate for a ford dealer to buy "toyota" to get business from a competitor. Trademarks are not for censorship.
Actually it does... (Score:4, Insightful)
Restricting the use of language doesn't work.
Actually it has and it historically does. That's why people do it. But this debate isn't really about restricting language, it's, deciding, who gets to own the definitions of words, the government, or the private sector.
Parent