the Fat Tax - Page 7 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-20-2006, 01:28 PM   #91
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 07:43 AM
I'm not a trademark lawyer, but I do know that if a company does not defend a trademark; it will lose the trademark. This forces a company to be diligent to investigate possible infringement and take all reasonable steps to protect the mark.

In both cases, it was not simply a matter of an innocent independent coffee shop being targeted by big, mean Starbucks; we have independent operators who wanted to get some benefit from using a similar logo as Starbucks.

And Sam Buck could have had money in his pocket - he chose to continue to infringe on a trademark and incur litigation expenses.

None of this is unusual. Cease and desist letters are sent everyday by companies with trademarks. Sometimes there are innocent infringements, but frequently the infringing party knows what they are doing.

Trademark cases are quite different that site selection for retail outlets, which was what I thought we were discussing.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 06-20-2006, 02:43 PM   #92
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 10:43 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Trademark cases are quite different that site selection for retail outlets, which was what I thought we were discussing.


there are many ways to destroy your competition.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 06-20-2006, 02:51 PM   #93
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 07:43 AM
With horrible things like doing a better job
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 06-20-2006, 03:09 PM   #94
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 10:43 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
With horrible things like doing a better job


horrible things like a well-paid legal team and thousands of employees.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 06-20-2006, 03:16 PM   #95
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 07:43 AM
Sometimes you need that when people want to steal from you
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 06-20-2006, 03:18 PM   #96
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 10:43 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Sometimes you need that when people want to steal from you




curse that Sam Bucks.

:shakesangryfist:
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 06-20-2006, 03:20 PM   #97
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 07:43 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511


curse that Sam Bucks.

:shakesangryfist:
If you don't want to deal with the requirements of trademark law, we can always just shake angry fists at big organizations (unions and liberal non profits exempt of course )
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 06-20-2006, 04:02 PM   #98
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 10:43 AM
i'd rather shake my fist at a monochormatic exurban landscape and a choice between a $3 macchiato or a $3.50 macchiatio with whip in paper.

it seems as if the defense of capitalism, as it is practiced in the US particualrly today in what might be called "late capitalism," becomes a defense of fewer choices and those choices controled and presented by fewer and fewer corporate entities. we're becoming like the Soviet Union, but with money.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 06-20-2006, 04:59 PM   #99
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 07:43 AM
Well, shake away.

It is an odd company to target. Healthcare benefits for all employees. Stock options for all employees. Fair trade practices. Big corporation. How to reconcil all these principles!
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 06-20-2006, 05:07 PM   #100
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 10:43 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Well, shake away.

It is an odd company to target. Healthcare benefits for all employees. Stock options for all employees. Fair trade practices. Big corporation. How to reconcil all these principles!


i find it amazing that such things are exceptions to be lauded rather than parts of a standard business model.

i'm not sure how we arrived at Starbucks either, but all those benefits for employees (something WalMart could learn from) doesn't negate their predatory practices and deliberate targeting of independent coffee shops -- which leads us back to the overall lesson that large corporations seek to reduce choice and increase their influence on the consumer through a variety of tactics and the result is that people have far less choice than they like to tell themsleves that they have.

i think it's also possible to see things in various shades of grey, to appreciate complexity, and realize that things are neither all good nor all bad. however, good qualities don't negate bad qualities, and vice versa.

it does come down to what values one has, i suppose, when it comes to evaluating the net good or net bad of something like Starbucks or McDonalds.

in my opinion, unhealthy food, blandness, homogeneity, increased capital in the hands of a few, rising obesity, a crowded media landscape with a thousand voices telling you to buy-buy-buy, and many more things, all spell the death of culture. as i've said, late capitalism, where we have fewer and fewer megacorporations controlling more and more of commerce, is really akin to a Soviet-style economy, or at least an oligarcy. we have unhealthier lifestyles and less choice because of it.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 06-20-2006, 05:22 PM   #101
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 07:43 AM
You have yet to establish bad qualities. Repeating "predatory practices and deliberate targeting of independent coffee shops" without evidence is empty fist waving.

We have more choices today than we did 10 years ago, 25 years ago, 50 years ago, etc.

The fact that people are free to make "bad" choices is not enough to substantiate a tax on such "bad" choices.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 06-20-2006, 05:48 PM   #102
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 10:43 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
You have yet to establish bad qualities. Repeating "predatory practices and deliberate targeting of independent coffee shops" without evidence is empty fist waving.



i just gave you several examples of Starbucks using litigation to intimidate its competition.

Starbucks also tried to sue this Oklahoma-based company -- www.doubleshotcoffee.com -- into changing it's name because it claimed that the name DoubleShot Coffee is too close to the name of a Starbucks product. Starbucks doubleshot is a mass produced coffee-drink sold in stores across the country, and DoubleShot Coffee company is an independent roaster of beans in the Tulsa area. Starbucks contends that you will mistake the two. it's like suing a coffeeshop for having the word 'coffee' in its name.

anyway, here's a nice summary of Starbuck's "lease poaching" from Naomi Klein:

[q]"Until the practice began creating controversy a few years back, Starbucks' real estate strategy was to stake out a popular independent cafe in a well-trafficked, funky location, and simply poach the lease out from under it," Klein writes. "Several independent cafe owners in prime locations are on record claiming that Starbucks went directly to their landlords and offered to pay them higher rental payments for the same or adjacent spaces."

Once a foothold has been established in a new market, Starbucks commences what it calls "clustering," flooding the zone with as many new stores as possible, to the point where a new Starbucks location is actually stealing business away from other Starbucks stores. The overall effect is a net increase in sales revenue chain-wide and another step toward achieving the company's primary goal: advancing brand recognition to household-word status.

The collateral damage, of course, is that Starbucks cannibalizes not only itself, but also all the mom-and-pop coffeehouses and restaurants in its selling radius. And while Starbucks is big enough that it can absorb a few percentage-point declines in sales at select stores, the little guy usually operates at such a narrow profit margin that even a modest drop in sales can mean closing up shop. Essentially, they die a death by a thousand tiny cuts.
[/q]

and there's also the fact that it's caffeine content is through the roof, drawing nictotine comparisons.


[q]We have more choices today than we did 10 years ago, 25 years ago, 50 years ago, etc. [/q]

can you quantify this? also, isn't this something any big corporation doesn't want? isn't it in it's best interests to eliminate competition?


Quote:
The fact that people are free to make "bad" choices is not enough to substantiate a tax on such "bad" choices.

so you support the repeal of all "sin taxes" on cigarettes and alcohol?
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 06-20-2006, 06:27 PM   #103
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 07:43 AM
You've given me a few examples of Starbucks defending its trademarks, as required by federal law in order to maintain its trademarks. When someone tries to ride on your coattails, and does so in violation of law, it is wrong to stop them??

As for the real estate leasing description, relying on the editorial commentary of an anti-globalization activist really doesn't provide convincing evidence (though it helps me understand your persistence in the face of contrary evidence). In fact her statements run contrary to the economic evidence on the subject (after Starbucks moved into San Francisco, the number on independent operators tripled).

If you have worked in real estate, you would know there is extreme competition for well-trafficked locations. Not just from Starbucks, but from a long list of QSR and other retailers who all live by the same mantra: location, location, location. When leases come up for renewal, landlords look for the best deal possible. Now, an independent operator may feel entitled to stay where they are at presumable below market rates, but that is not reality.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 06-20-2006, 06:55 PM   #104
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 10:43 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
[B]You've given me a few examples of Starbucks defending its trademarks, as required by federal law in order to maintain its trademarks. When someone tries to ride on your coattails, and does so in violation of law, it is wrong to stop them??

ride on their coattails by daring to get into the coffee business?



[q]As for the real estate leasing description, relying on the editorial commentary of an anti-globalization activist really doesn't provide convincing evidence (though it helps me understand your persistence in the face of contrary evidence). In fact her statements run contrary to the economic evidence on the subject (after Starbucks moved into San Francisco, the number on independent operators tripled).[/q]


could you site your evidence please? you've demanded much from me, but provided none of your own.

yes, dismiss Ms. Klein outright. she must be wrong. especially with all the contrary evidence you've provided.

anyway, Starbucks eliminates competition through buy-outs, "cluster bombing" tactics, and market cannibalization. if Starbucks finds a successful coffee establishment they build one or more locations to take their business. they lease buildings to keep out competition.

Starbucks's market-entry strategy involves first finding a market's leading independent coffee shop and then buying the lease out from under them in order to replace the shop with a Starbucks. if they cannot buy the lease, several franchises are opened around the shop and heavily promoted to draw the crowd (this happened in my hometown in CT -- we had an independent coffee shop, and Starbucks opened up a 2nd location two blocks away). hence, the "cluster bombing" campaign. after driving out independently owned coffee shops, the Starbucks franchises then have to start competing with themselve, but the net revenue growth increases.

also note the Starbucks inside other large retail outfits -- inside Safeway, Barnes and Nobles, etc.

you're also getting caught up -- as you do, in addition to ignoring my questions -- in the minutae and missing the larger discussion here: the effect that large corporations have upon American culture and lifestyle as well as the reduction of meaningful choice for the consumer.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 06-20-2006, 07:23 PM   #105
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 07:43 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
ride on their coattails by daring to get into the coffee business?
I could sell a new soda much faster if I bottled it in something that looked like a coke bottle. Mimicking someone’s name, logo or other trademark is riding on their coattails. Stealing goodwill from a large corporation is still stealing.

Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
could you site your evidence please? you've demanded much from me, but provided none of your own.

yes, dismiss Ms. Klein outright. she must be wrong. especially with all the contrary evidence you've provided.

anyway, Starbucks eliminates competition through buy-outs, "cluster bombing" tactics, and market cannibalization. if Starbucks finds a successful coffee establishment they build one or more locations to take their business. they lease buildings to keep out competition.

Starbucks market-entry strategy involves first finding a market's leading independent coffee shop and then buying the lease out from under them in order to replace the shop with a Starbucks. if they cannot buy the lease, several franchises are opened around the shop and heavily promoted to draw the crowd (this happened in my hometown in CT -- we had an independent coffee shop, and Starbucks opened up a 2nd location two blocks away). hence, the "cluster bombing" campaign. after driving out independently owned coffee shops, the Starbucks franchises then have to start competing with themselve, but the net revenue growth increases.

also note the Starbucks inside other large retail outfits -- inside Safeway, Barnes and Nobles, etc.

you're also getting caught up -- as you do, in addition to ignoring my questions -- in the minutae and missing the larger discussion here: the effect that large corporations have upon American culture and lifestyle as well as the reduction of meaningful choice for the consumer.
Yes, I got the editorial comments in the last few posts. Here is some more evidence to chew on: From 2001 to 2004, the total number of independent coffee houses in the US increased from 10,330 to an estimated 13,570 – despite the growth in Starbucks. (Mintel Consumer Intelligence Report)

Repeating conclusionary statements about “Starbuck’s market-entry strategy” without any experience or evidence on the subject doesn’t get you any closer to the truth. If you want to buy into Ms. Klein’s opinions – fine. Don’t confuse them with fact.

And how can we trust your larger claims (reduction in choice) when the evidence you used to support such claims doesn’t pan out? You’ve made statements and asked questions – and I’ve responded to them.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:43 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com