A blogger has taken legal action to defend his right to criticise bailed-out investment bank Goldman Sachs. The bank has threatened to sue over trade mark infringement, but the blogger has launched his own legal campaign to defend himself. Goldman Sachs was bailed out with $10 billion of US public money last year under the …
' "Yes, I am short Goldman Sachs stock," said Morgan on the site.'
ahhh, so it's just a chance to make a bit of cash - though he'll probably claim there's some irony involved...
my sympathy evaporated rather quickly at that point. He'll probably just end up skewing the law in favour of big corps. and screw it for genuine protesters...
not wanting to be an arse...
but ignoring what his intentions are, surely his use of that domain IS copyright infringement? The same would happen if you created www.apple999.com (or apple911 for the us lot), forget if it helps lots of people, it's infringement fo apple if it's related to apple in anyway (and not a help site for pink lady or granny smiths abusers, make of that as you will....)
Re: not wanting to be an arse...
>>surely his use of that domain IS copyright infringement?
Nope, you're thinking "trademark", and his site clearly indicates no association or similar services.
Otherwise, by the same logic you wouldn't be able to say "that halibut was good enough for Jehova" for fear of religous organisations stoning you to death (ahem) but seriously, for trademark infringement you'd have to show a deliberate intention to mislead.
Is he related?
Are we sure that Mike Morgan is not in any way related to J.P. Morgan?
I thought that US Government departments weren't allowed to trademark or copyright anything?
If he is short then that would explain it
This twonk is part of the financial system, he is just attempting to depress the share price in order to make some loot. Dont get me wrong I have no sympathy for any of the bankers but this guy is just another turd on the collective shoe.
The US government cannot copyright works that it creates because they are done on behalf of the public. However, it can trademark phrases, artwork and other associated things with government departments to protect both the government and the public from any confusion as to whether or not a private entity is a representative of the government agency.
That is neither here nor there with regards to Goldman Sachs. They are a private company who has received an investment from the government. That doesn't make them a governmental or quasi-governmental agency or department.
With regards to Goldman Sachs' claims, sadly I think Mr. Morgan has made a mistake by filing a lawsuit in court. He should have waited out the harassment until Sachs took him to WIPO. Under WIPO policy he wouldn't have to pay anything to the arbitration panel to defend himself, and he would most likely have a solid claim. By taking it to court, you end up leaving the decision in the hands of a judge - or worse, a jury - who will more likely be ignorant of the policies regarding domain names and is likely to side with the larger corporation.
Fat Lazy Cats and Hungry Rabid Dogs ...... Game On?
"That is neither here nor there with regards to Goldman Sachs. They are a private company who has received an investment from the government. That doesn't make them a governmental or quasi-governmental agency or department."
Are you sure? For such a bailout might by default mean that they are a governmental or quasi-governmental agency or department, subject to Public Control and Pillage rather than merely for Private Use in Abuse.
is this the same...
Goldman Sachs who, despite having been bailed out, have just announced huge bonuses?
Greedy beyond bounds.
- Bugger the jetpack, where's my 21st-century Psion?
- Something for the Weekend, Sir? Why can’t I walk past Maplin without buying stuff I don’t need?
- Review 'Mommy got me an UltraVibe Pleasure 2000 for Xmas!' South Park: Stick of Truth
- The land of Milk and Sammy: Free music app touted by Samsung
- Privacy warriors lob sueball at Facebook buyout of WhatsApp