What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Watch a scene from 2012, in theaters November 13 view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Get ready for the biggest event in history – the end of time. How will you survive? 2012- opening 11/13
73 Comments
- FlareHeart, on 04/24/2009, -0/+54This lawsuit is so flawed. What Taser is doing is essentially suing the entirety of SL for the actions of ONE of its online stores. That is essentially like suing eBay because one user was selling illegal merchandise. This won't go far.
- AngryAngryBrian, on 04/24/2009, -1/+22Its called deep pockets. You don't sue the poor jerk who hits your car, you sue his insurance company. You don't sue the minimum wage employee who spills the coffee on you, you sue Burger King. This isn't as open shut as you think it would be. I totally agree with you that is BS, but thats the way it works sometimes.
- nepidae, on 04/25/2009, -0/+19They should just make the in game tasers have a chance of "killing". Since Taser brand tasers have a 0% chance of killing there will be no confusion.
- allisonaxe, on 04/25/2009, -0/+16you don't sue the whacko who writes the threatening letter, you sue Bic, who made his pen. this is really the same kind of deal here: Second Life is essentially, in this case, a creative tool.
one could also use the band-aid and kleenex argument, that the name Taser is so ingrained in popular culture (the line isn't "don't shock me, bro" but rather, "don't tase me") that the brand-name has become inextricably intwined with the category of object itself, so therefore using it in this context could be considered public domain to a certain degree. - TheWalt, on 04/25/2009, -0/+11No one else seems to have detected the wit in your comment. I thought it was funny.
- maynardw, on 04/25/2009, -0/+9Also:
Thor smites WoW for using warhammers. - Treason, on 04/25/2009, -0/+9Welcome to the internet.
- radialturkey, on 04/25/2009, -0/+9The strange thing to me is that the article said Taser could assert that Linden is "directly involved in the sale of these sorts of items", which seems ridiculous. It's no different than selling a picture of a Taser and being sued for selling a counterfeit Taser. The items are only virtual images of the actual product.
- noahgelman, on 04/25/2009, -1/+8To be fair, they are using their name. And at least they're not suing for 20 million dollars or some outrageous number like that. $75,000 isn't really all that much.
- inactive, on 04/25/2009, -9/+16holy ***** second life is seriously for straight up fags.
- EXTER, on 04/25/2009, -0/+6Don't sue me bro.
- gamepr0, on 04/25/2009, -0/+6You know way too much about second life.
- doctechnical, on 04/25/2009, -1/+7Second Life has Tasers??! Wow. I may have to join now.
- Gareth321, on 04/25/2009, -0/+6This is very much like The Pirate Bay suit. TPB didn't directly spread any information - that was done by users of their services. Unfortunately if you can pay off enough judges, you can get away with anything.
- sodoh, on 04/25/2009, -0/+6If they lose they can pay them in Linden Dollars. :p
- gamepr0, on 04/25/2009, -1/+7facts get dugg
- KarateMedia, on 04/25/2009, -1/+7This is ultimately pretty basic trademark law. Taser is a trademarked brand name, and it is the responsibility of the company to ensure the brand is not diluted in ways such as this. Allowing the sale of unauthorized "Taser" branded stun guns (even in the virtual world) clearly dilutes the mark.
In some fields, such as writing, companies proactively try to communicate this to people (flip through a writers' magazine and you'll find company-placed ads advising things like "Don't say Xerox, say photocopier.")
It's really not so much about what might be done with the stun guns in SL. It's about the dilution of the brand. - doctechnical, on 04/25/2009, -0/+5@allisonaxe: If you were a lawyer, suing Bic would make sense.
As far as the band-aid/kleenex thing - one of the reasons they lost protection of their trademarks is because they didn't defend then vigorously enough (at least in the eyes of the courts). Which is exactly why companies behave like this, if they *don't* defend their trademarks they may lose them. So they go lawsuit-happy.
In all probability there will be an out-of-court settlement that includes Second Life removing the offending item. - radialturkey, on 04/25/2009, -1/+6For the love of god, no.
- duggdowncatisad, on 04/25/2009, -0/+5Sounds like some lawyers need to be tased.
- sourc3, on 04/25/2009, -0/+4Dugg for "stun games."
Hey Timmy, wanna play a fun game? *ZAP* - inactive, on 04/25/2009, -1/+5Actually, you DO sue the person who hits you in a car. The insurance company just takes the case for them as they have to. But if someone is insured for only $250,000 liability, and they get successfully sued for half a million dollars, they are obligated to pay the other $250,000. And the lawsuit will read "(your name) versus (their name)" not "(your name) versus (insurance company)"
- GlenAWalker, on 04/25/2009, -0/+4Wow RETARDED!! Plus i think 'taser' has achieved the same status as 'kleenex' .very few people say tissue, they say kleenex. Very few people say stun gun, taser is where it's at.
- Schwa142, on 04/25/2009, -1/+5I'm in a bum mood, and that actually made me laugh... even though that skit kinda pissed me off for going on so long. much worse than the chicken fight.
- KarateMedia, on 04/25/2009, -0/+4Actually, you should check out the article they link to:
"Since Linden Lab's acquisition of Xstreet SL, the Lab is no longer mediating transactions between buyers and sellers. Xstreet SL arguably retails on behalf of sellers, and takes a commission. It's going to be difficult to argue that the Lab/Xstreet SL is not selling these items.
[...]
Linden Lab's acquisition of Xstreet SL seems to have opened it up to direct liability, as it seems difficult to argue that it is now merely a mediator of transactions."
http://www.massively.com/2009/04/21/taser-internat ... - Astark, on 04/25/2009, -3/+7People actually use second life? I thought that was a fad from like three years ago?
- thecatcantalk, on 04/25/2009, -0/+4Also, Taser International has made no effort, ever, to restrict the sale of its weapons to law enforcement personnel. Any rapist, bank robber or violent nutjob can buy a Taser with no background check or waiting period. And unlike a firearm, a Taser is silent (doesn't attract cops) and instantly renders a criminal's victim totally defenseless. A wounded man can still fight back or yell for help, unless he's been Tasered.
So, for Taser to argue that their "brand name is being maligned by negative associations" is disingenuous at best.
Their case still has no merit. But their stun guns are real handy for kidnapping cops and judges. - inactive, on 04/25/2009, -0/+4Only a tard knows about new things that occur in Second Life. Taser International shouldn't have even found out. lol
- inactive, on 04/25/2009, -0/+3Holy *****, have you ever heard of this novel concept "computer gaming" ? Apparently they even have fire arms in them and as rumor has it, grownup, serious people pretend to play games in these virtual spaces, shooting at each other.
- nils, on 04/25/2009, -0/+3Just counter-file to delete the trademark. To taser someone has, unfortunately, become a commonly used verb, kind of like "to google" or "to xerox".
- psion01, on 04/25/2009, -0/+3There are combat areas within Second Life that are a bit more like role-playing games and wherein one's avatar can be injured by weapons temporarily. Within such areas, you can be shot, stabbed, even killed. If you're killed in a Sim (a section of the Second Life grid), your avatar is transported home and can't enter that Sim again for 24 hours, I think.
- sodoh, on 04/25/2009, -0/+3"Prostitution". There is no prostitution in SL. It is pornography. There are probably escort meet ups in RL via SL but I'd say they are rare. I would say they fall into (figures pulled out my backside :)
80% - SL avatar sex or ingame escorting.
10% - SL naked pics sent. (may or may not be the person)
9% - Web Cam pay per view.
1% - RL escorts. - DulcetTone, on 04/25/2009, -0/+3Shocking!
- KarateMedia, on 04/25/2009, -0/+3Also, one of the articles they link to has some good info, including this final section:
"As absurd as it might seem, Taser's case appears to have some merit to it, despite what seems to be a sloppy complaint.
Linden Lab's acquisition of Xstreet SL seems to have opened it up to direct liability, as it seems difficult to argue that it is now merely a mediator of transactions.
Trademarks and design patents, almost certainly have been violated, though the damages to Taser International Inc seem to verge on the insignificant, and the matter could have been cleared up quickly with a DMCA notice."
http://www.massively.com/2009/04/21/taser-internat ...
That said, I would argue that in terms of protecting their trademark, the infringement is not "insignificant." A company is required to "actively defend" their trademark, or risk losing it. - thecatcantalk, on 04/25/2009, -0/+3Second Life is an interactive, ongoing theatrical event with an entrance fee; a work of fiction,and therefore protected by artistic license, just as a satirical novel would be. Fictional, theatrical depictions of real-world technology are not substantive allegations of fact, and do not constitute slander or libel. And, actual Tasers are routinely found in close proximity to illegal drugs and prostitution. Cops carry Tasers. Cops spend a lot of time in close proximity to drug dealers and prostitutes. Therefore, Tasers are routinely associated in public perception with both hard drugs and sex for money (and with criminal misconduct by public employees).
The complaint is tangentially similar to the lawsuit in which a contemporary of Ernest Hemingway sued that author, because "anyone can see that this fictional character in the novel "The Sun Also Rises" is meant to be me".
"If it's clearly recognizable as you, then it's not libel", replied the judge. He threw the suit out.
An insult isn't actionable if it's demonstrably true. This case has no merit. Plaintiff's counsel should be Tasered 12 times, in public. Then once more for luck. And Taser, International, are going to be sorry when the court directs them to pay the defendant's legal fees and fvck off. - radialturkey, on 04/25/2009, -0/+3FTA: "One would also have assumed that perhaps a DMCA takedown would have been enough, but the lawyers would not get any money out of it in that case."
- KarateMedia, on 04/25/2009, -0/+3Please see what I mentioned below (which I was typing as you were posting) - A business must "actively defend" their trademark, or risk losing it. Even if the unauthorized representation is immensely positive, it can still cause a company to lose the rights to their own mark.
- Gareth321, on 04/25/2009, -0/+2I would argue saturation is far more profitable, provided the brand isn't being used in negative ways.
- meerling, on 04/25/2009, -0/+2(ianal - I still have ethics...) Seems it's more advertising for Taser than anything else, it seems to me that it doesn't dilute their trademark at all. In fact, I suspect they are getting rabid about this stuff because they realise that they are in danger of loosing certain trademark rights because taser has become a household term for any sort of electrically based stunning device that isn't a cattle prod.
As to the B.S. about $500 fine for each sale of a knockoff taser, I fully expect that to fall through the same as anyone selling a movie that someone uses a taser in being considered a knockoff sale. The virtual items are just data that describes a shape and coloring. It might have a little scripting action to include a zapping sound or something like that when you pretend to fire it. No way anybody, not from my 4 year old to your 90 year old Alzheimer ridden grandfather could ever mistake that for a real taser. (Not even the Boston P.D. would make that mistake, and those morons thought a flat mooninite blinkie board was a bomb!) - finalcloud33, on 04/25/2009, -5/+7Ladies and gentlemen Conway Twitty!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67GSo3MxGi0 - inactive, on 04/25/2009, -0/+2No better still, some lawyers need to mysteriously disappear and wake up in Second Life, as if they were magically transported there.
- sourabhg, on 04/25/2009, -0/+2A move for publicity
- iAmGeek, on 04/26/2009, -0/+2If that was supposed to a joke... you failed miserably. If it wasn't... then you don't get out much, virtually or otherwise.
- Gareth321, on 04/25/2009, -0/+2What the hell are you talking about? I can barely follow you. Torrent files aren't illegal anywhere. They're not even illegal in Sweden if they link to copyrighted works. Are you high?
- JohnFlux, on 04/25/2009, -1/+3Obviously you're American.
- Thorlord, on 04/27/2009, -0/+2actually its more along the lines of Taser trying to hold onto the copywright of their name.
if everyone calls a shock-gun-like-device a Taser, even when it is not branded a taser, and if it becomes common slang, Taser loses the right to copywright on the name. and then other companies could sell their own brand of "Tasers"
its a common fight, Google is fighting its own battle to keep "googling" out of the dictionary, or else yahoo could say "google the web with Yahoo Search"
while i think its fricking stupid for these lawsuits to come up, they have to at least try to keep their brand name clean. - jcharak58, on 04/26/2009, -0/+2false... that is why they need to sue to defend their name from statements like that
- JudgeMonkey, on 04/26/2009, -0/+2I'm American and I don't say kleenex.
- inactive, on 04/25/2009, -0/+1While they are at it, rewrite the title so that eschompthis gets it. Add something about electrolytes, because everyone knows that electrolytes are good for you.
-
Show 51 - 75 of 75 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is