[Upd-discuss] Jewish Rock-n-Roll Hall of Fame sued over trademark violation

[Jason Tanenbaum]

I've learned something these last few days about how to post to this 
list.  Let's try this again...

Lesson one - no rhetorical questions.  Clear assertions only.

I say that people who see only one side of a debate are often either 
overly simplistic or purposefully close minded.  Our current 
administration is a good example, one which I strive not to emulate.  
That said, I was wrong to suggest that all foci of discussions are 
equal.  I should have said that there is no objective way for you to 
prove that any one focus is more 'right' than another.  The best you can 
do is make a convincing argument.  For example:

 >> When the goal is to address a practical social issue, the right focus
 >> is the focus that helps one see the issue clearly.  Other focuses that
 >> distract attention away from the issue are wrong focuses.

I applaud your sense of conviction.  I'm personally not yet convinced of 
which strategy is the best to achieve social change in this area or even 
what "the" issue is.

 >> There are clearly multiple levels of discussion and abstraction.

 > Such as?

In the case of copyright, patent, trademark, trade secrets, plant 
variety protection, etc. (better?), there are specific questions of 
policy that are germane to each branch of law and there are concerns 
such as chilling of free speech that carry across rather well.  If 
there's no complexity in what we're discussing, why the need for a 
discussion list?

 >> - a reality of many political debates.

 > Such as?

Let's see.  Virtually every aspect of crime policy involves multiple 
questions, e.g. public safety and civil liberties.  Environmental 
political debates involve questions of economics, science and 
philosophy.  Economic regulations (including copyright, patent, 
trademark...) can involve not only economics but questions of civil 
rights, health and safety, justice, etc.  One can (and politicians often 
do) argue about them separately depending on political strategies and 
goals.  I say the best chance of creating decent, stable policy is to 
talk about them together, although not necessarily equally.  There are 
obviously those who see political questions with perfect clarity, but 
I'm not one of them.

 >> They need not be mutually exclusive.

 > This is how Intelligent Design gets on curricula.

Are you equating free speech with intelligent design?  There's got to be 
a better example to use (if there was a plausible alternative version of 
evolution maybe) .  Do you think that physicists are only capable of 
discussing one cosmological theory?  I bet they can talk about string 
theory concurrently with other theories. 

 >> Who is to say that the common free speech concerns that run through
 >> the different areas of law are less important than the specific policy
 >> issues of each?

 > Who is to say they are more important than the obvious differences? 
And can they please do so in the form of a falsifiable argument?

Remember Lesson One!  I say they're as important as obvious 
differences.  Or at least important enough to be kept on the table.  
Feel free to disagree.

 >> A general concern such as freedom of speech can apply (in different 
ways) to each of these various laws, just as it applies to other laws 
that are not labeled as "intellectual property".
 >> But each of these laws raises its own issues, and the only way to 
deal with them thoughtfully, the only way to decide how to apply our 
various general concerns to each one, is to study it individually.

In sum, I think it's legitimate and potentially beneficial to discuss 
both commonalities and differences regarding these areas of law.  But, 
I'm still open to other views on the matter.

Hey, this has been fun.

Jason


-- 

Jason Tanenbaum, J.D.
Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Political Science
University of Oregon