@[email protected] to Anti-Corporate [email protected]English • 9 days ago

Legally, they can’t be called ‘uggs’ outside of Australia – but the name will stick regardless

theconversation.com

9

58

Legally, they can’t be called ‘uggs’ outside of Australia – but the name will stick regardless

theconversation.com

@[email protected] to Anti-Corporate [email protected]English • 9 days ago

9

After years of legal challenges between Australian manufacturers and American footwear giant Deckers Brands, UGG Since 1974 will drop ‘ugg’ for international sales.

cross-posted from: https://lazysoci.al/post/21380443

Fuck me capitalism is broken. Being able to trademark a generic term is ridiculous in itself, but then enforcing that trademark to fuck over businesses that were using the term before your company even existed is fucking abhorrent.

Chat

@Droggelbecher
link
English
1•6 days ago
Small side note, but does anyone else dislike how the word ‘invented’ is used for new fashion? Like, no, that’s not what an invention is.

Anti-Corporate [email protected]

[email protected]

You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]

This community is the first one on lemmy of its kind. It sits between the idea of anarchism/anti-capitalism and left leaning economic policy.

Our goal is to make people aware of the dangers of corporate control, its influence on governments and people as well as the small but steady abrasion of empathy around the world indirectly caused by it.

Current topics this includes but is not limited to:

Meta’s entry into the fediverse
Game companies putting gambling mechanics in childrens games
Embracer groups buyout and closing of smaller game studios
IP trolls destroying small companies and keeping progress back for profit

Feel free to debate this but beware, corporate rhetoric is not welcome here. If you have arguments, bring them on. If its rhetoric trying to defend the evil actions of corporations, we will know and you will go.

Our declared goal so far is to have all companies and individuals worldwide capped at 999 mil USD in all assets, including ownership of other companies, sister companies and marital assets. The reason for this is that companies (and individuals) are not supposed to resemble small(?) countries with a single leader(-board) and shareholder primacy. Thats why we feel like they must be kept in check indefinitely.

But companies will just wander off The argument that large companies will just wander off is valid, which we embrace. We dont need microsoft, apple, google, amazon and other trillion dollar companies. There are small competitors being kept small and driven into brankruptcy by anti competitive behavior of these giants or simply bought up and closed. If starbucks left tomorrow, we would not have an issue with this.

But then we have x little microsofts that all belong to the same person(s) If in fact nobody was allowed to accumulate more than 999 mil in assets, they would not be able to own all these. And like defending agains burglary, it is not about complete defence but time and effort. You only have to keep the thief occupied long enough for them to be caught, give up or make a mistake.

But these giants have tons of IP which would then limit our growth Thats another topic we must touch on. We will (only this one time) take a page out of russias playbook and demand that IP of non complying companies (assets over 999 mil USD) will be declared invalid, which opens them up to be copied.

But then they will “live” in one country that doesnt accept this Correct, and they should be taken into custody the moment they enter the airspace of a country that supports this act.

290 users / day
398 users / week
959 users / month
2.03K users / 6 months
507 subscribers
117 Posts
684 Comments
Modlog

mods:
haui