EFF Teaches You How To Bake Mean-Spirited Censorship Pie
from the yum! dept
The EFF, who just moved into their new offices, seem to be making effective use of the new kitchen space. They're baking up a special recipe: mean-spirited censorship pie. Yum! Most of you would call it "Derby Pie." But a company called Kern's Kitchen has been going around threatening everyone calling it Derby Pie based on its trademark. Kern's has been forcing blogs to change what they call the pie when they post their own recipes:* Also, please make your mean-spirited censorship pie before the trademark application on that name goes through and we all have to find another name.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: censorship, derby pie, pie, trademark
Companies: eff
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Sorry, but the new name needs work...
Instead, why not call it a Derpy Pie in honor of Kern's derpy attempt to stifle people from posting the recipe!Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I remember when
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I remember when
People find this relatable and are better able to understand the issues with Intellectual Property.
Using their legal expertise is just as valid use of their time as educating people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I remember when
No, EFF should be shamed for pointing out why a company is locking up language.
Great set of priorities you got there...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I remember when
No, it's just really that the EFF is sort of flailing around looking for something to get outraged about because it makes for good publicity, and not so much these days about the nuts and bolts in the background. They use to be the people who showed up for important court cases, now they seem to be everywhere, trying to be everything anti-copyright, anti-patent, and the all covering anti-censorship.
All things to everyone, soup to nuts. Just no longer as focused as they once were.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I remember when
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I remember when
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I remember when
How is this possibly about political action rather than protecting rights?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I remember when
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I remember when
It's not constitutionally guaranteed. The constitution gives congress the legal right to grant copy'right' but congress has no obligation to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I remember when
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I remember when
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I remember when
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I remember when
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nothing wrong with this trademark IMHO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nothing wrong with this trademark IMHO
Do I think the term is generic? Maybe, but I've never heard of the pie by any name until today. Regardless, as of now no court has held that it is generic. So he has a valid trademark and he's enforcing it.
I personally think he's in the PIE business and should stop spending so much money on litigation, but it's not my place to tell him how to run his business. And as a lawyer I commend his desire to employ us so handsomely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nothing wrong with this trademark IMHO
Bloggers posting Derby Pie recipes to their website are not engaged in commerce, which is necessary for their to be a trademark violation...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Nothing wrong with this trademark IMHO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nothing wrong with this trademark IMHO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Nothing wrong with this trademark IMHO
The trademark should only apply to the item iself, not the broad general use of the word. (or city name!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I remember when Mike at least tried to tackle problems.
After fifteen years of Mike writing about copyright, no one has been able to pry out more of his position than that copyright is broken. Don't you guys ever want to do more than whine? You can't beat a focused industry without even the outline of alternatives, and that's why the copyright maximalists keep winning every battle!
Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up same place!
http://techdirt.com/
Mike claims to have a college degree in economics, can't ya tell?
11:39:58[m-522-4]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I remember when Mike at least tried to tackle problems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I remember when Mike at least tried to tackle problems.
Or... Are they both separate personalities of the same deluded mind?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I remember when Mike at least tried to tackle problems.
After all, with today's open-minded society, who said a wife had to be a woman? We've no reason to believe OOTB's not a woman, either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sorry, but the new name needs work...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spirited?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Censorship?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Censorship?
It seems you're new to this or simply trying to egg on a response, so I'll give you a hint to help. Comments such as a snarkily-worded "charity comment" do not constitute as "opposing views" worthy of reading or viewing. When someone does this sort of jackass manoeuvre consistently, people will consistently hide nitwits like these by default.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Censorship?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I did something like this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]