Results 1 to 16 of 16
April 10th, 2007, 08:48 AM #1
? unconstitutional ?
- Join Date
- January 18th, 2005
- West Coast USA
A Bad Idea From Utah: A Ban on Comparative Advertising
The cost to search engines would be staggeringly high: "Literally millions of search requests from locations worldwide each day would be subject to verification of location."
April 10th, 2007, 10:58 AM #2
No question it's in violation of the Commerce Clause of the US Consititution and an attempt to regulate an area of law that is specifically reserved to the Federal government.
April 10th, 2007, 11:08 AM #3
where is the motivation in such a lame idea????
April 10th, 2007, 11:20 AM #4Originally Posted by mrbshouse
ps - i'm not referring to any particular party, but them all. this isn't meant to drive a wedge between me and anybody else's politics, but to say we all have a problem. the solution is to publish the truth of things and to thereby let people make better choices, that's all. if this issue makes your blood boil (mine's just simmering), dig and find the answer to mrbshouse's question and expose it. we need to vote those types out of office.
April 10th, 2007, 11:21 AM #5
and make sure this isn't an april fools joke... it's that stupid.
April 10th, 2007, 11:30 AM #6
April 10th, 2007, 11:33 AM #7Originally Posted by Donuts
April 10th, 2007, 11:34 AM #8
- Join Date
- January 18th, 2005
- West Coast USA
April 10th, 2007, 11:52 AM #9Originally Posted by Donuts
We are moving from a nation of laws to a nation of endless obstacles and take aways being promoted by "not a clue" legislators who simply MUST come up with something unique to hang their re-election hats on?. These bubble-heads really need to go back to being civil servants in non-private sectors and kept away from writing legislation that affects real people.
I especially liked the proposed "use" of excess funds....
Any funds collected from the registration of a mark under this chapter or the use of the database in excess of the expense of maintaining the database shall be retained as dedicated credits to be used by the division to:
(2) promote the state as a desirable location for business; and
(3) provide incentives to businesses considering relocation to the state.
You MUST be kidding!@#!@%$#@!!! I suggest that if Imus could be suspended for two weeks over a remark he made, these clowns can be suspended (by voters) indefinitely for the constant pain they inflict on small businesses. I'm going fishing! Hopefully they have not passed a fish surcharge / luxury tax on sportsmen while I was writing this. Shame on you Utah...... Shame on you.
April 10th, 2007, 11:55 AM #10
his website says:
Liberty is the essence of the American dream. As public servants, we need to keep that uppermost in our minds.
I approach public service with one goal in mind: to help ensure my grandchildren will be free to follow their dreams and have the same opportunities I had.
cough, cough... what the heck???
here's the state senate voting on this bill:
in their house it was:
i assume they have politicians from more than one party in their senate and/or house... this thing passed unanimously in both houses of their state congress... what the heck???
April 10th, 2007, 12:06 PM #11Originally Posted by Donuts
Do we have the power here at ABW to replace the entire state house and senate of Utah? How many states will follow suit on this one? Time for a Red Bull & V.
April 10th, 2007, 12:19 PM #12
here's the bill's details and links:
here's the audio of eastman discussing the bill on the floor of the utah state senate:
the discussion starts ~5min, 5sec
he gives the gm versus ford example at ~9min, 18sec
it's 15min, 27sec long
Mr. Eastman was a huge mega car dealership owner before becoming a politician, and his example mentions (at 9:18) that it is a real life example... he sold his dealerships to enter office (http://www.daneastman.com/biography.php)... sounds like he's trying to protect his fat cat car dealership owner friends... while ignoring the freedoms already afforded by the courts regarding competitive advertising... and ignoring the freedom of information his grandkids won't have... and he also goes on to say that creating this database and making the search engines (I wish my view of the internet was so simplistic!) comply will create a cottage industry in Utah - like incorporating did for Delaware, trademark registration, monitoring and legal cases would attract people to register electronic marks in Utah...
the debate with 2 senate members asking a couple of questions reminds me of how lightly our government representatives take matters. it sounds formal, but they're ignorant of the internet and of the bill's real life ramifications - and it shows in the audio.
the drafting, discussion and debate of this bill makes utah look like a bunch of amateurs!!!
April 10th, 2007, 12:29 PM #13
thankfully, utah requires that all new legislation have a separate report drawn up on their fiscal imapct to the state... here's what they said about eastman's bill:
from their "state impact" section:
"The bill has a Legislative Review Note indicating the bill has a high probability of being found unconstitutional."
their "Individual, Business and/or Local Impact" section says:
"Enactment of this bill likely will not result in direct, measurable costs and/or benefits for individuals or local governments. Businesses would be required to pay $250 for the electronic trademark annually."
Eastman's a weiner.
And the bill says they will outsource the job of creating and maintaining the database of marks and for the monitoring of search engines use of those marks... wonder who owns that business... since Eastman said the bill creates a cottage industry in Utah...
April 10th, 2007, 12:38 PM #14
I love how the government seems to pay little attention to issues like malaria, poverty, genocide, or global warming. Apparently comparative advertisements on Google is an issue that must be tackled immediately? To spend even one cent of tax dollars on an issue like comparative advertising is just such a waste. Obviously the Utah legislature has way too much time on their hands. Seriously, WTF!
April 10th, 2007, 12:41 PM #15
i'm not a lawyer.
from reading this bill (now signed into law), it appears i can pay $250 to reigster my marks (like my last name or even "Donuts") and then if I search Google for Donuts in Utah and any other ads show, I can sue not only the advertisers, but Google as well.
of course, this may backfire since the bill "protection" is an OR clause...
(3) For a violation of Subsection (1)(c), the person whose business, goods, or service is advertised, and the person who sells or displays the advertisement are liable if:
(a) the advertisement is at any time displayed in the state; or
(b) the advertiser or person selling the advertisement is located in the state.
if you advertise online (or are a search engine that sells ads) and you're located in the state of utah, you can't show ads that infringe to someone in illinois... best to move your business out of utah, so you are only limited to not showing ads to people in utah...
it's no more than $250 for the first mark, then no more than $25 for each additional one. i'm thinking the cottage industry is people who find names that companies in utah might use - that G might broad match to, register them (even though you don't live in utah), then catch those businesses running ads on G that show for whatever you're come up with, then suing the company that's in utah... so find big companies with deep pockets in utah that advertise online, find synonyms of their trademarks, register them in utah and test G to see if ads they run already show for your "protected" words - sue them. rinse, lather, repeat.
April 10th, 2007, 01:13 PM #16
- Join Date
- January 18th, 2005
State and Federal legislatures are full of old, rich men making decisions about the Internet and they are clueless about the Internet. I'd bet money that 40% or more of state and federal lawmakers do not know how to check their own email. Their decisions are based on who gave them the most money and that is frightening.
By cowboysfan in forum Illinois Affiliate TaxReplies: 9Last Post: July 25th, 2012, 09:57 AM