Technology

hideshow 9 child comments

[–] bermuda@beehaw.org 75 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (7 children)

the amount of times I've read an internet article about this topic only to be met with a shockingly trivial mistake present front and center is staggering. the differences between patent, trademark, wordmark, etc. are all easily googleable and yet pretty much every article I've read on this has been using them interchangeably.

incoming rhetorical question: are these editors orangutans? (before anybody answers, i know editors & authors want to be the first one out the door so they get the most clicks and all that, but it's really not hard to make sure you're at least using the correct word. It seriously took me 20 seconds to find an answer on the difference between patent and trademark)

hideshow 7 child comments

parent

[–] tonamel@kbin.social 40 points 3 years ago

Of course they made the trivial mistake, because they also made a much, much bigger one. The X trademark as it pertains to social media is owned by Meta, who bought it from Microsoft when they acquired Mixer (which later became Facebook Gaming), including Mixer's X logo.

parent

[–] obosob@feddit.uk 8 points 3 years ago (1 child)

I think a lot of the issue is the widespread use of the term Intellectual Property which, arguably deliberately, conflates a few completely distinct legal concepts under one umbrella.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] wjrii@kbin.social 2 points 3 years ago

It's intentional in the sense that they all involve intangible works of the mind and are only "property" in the legal system due to developments much, much later than the "I'll bash you with a club if take my food" or the "I'll stab you with a spear if occupy my farm" social contracts of personal and real property. It was very useful for those learning the law.

You're right that they do very different things in society though, and it's not particularly helpful outside the legal profession to bundle them so tightly together. Trademarks in particular should only protect branding and identity and when not abused provide a pretty valuable direct service for consumers in that you know who you're dealing with.

The other two protect creators and therefore indirectly promise to "encourage innovation" that should benefit everyone, but they're literally nothing more than legalized, if limited, monopolies. As Disney has shown though, you can smear the edges of copyright and trademark until they start to blend together.