Facebook Oversight Board's First Decisions... Seem To Confirm Everyone's Opinions Of The Board

from the take-a-deep-breath dept

Last week, the Oversight Board -- which is the official name that the former Facebook Oversight Board wants you to call it -- announced decisions on the first five cases it has heard. It overturned four Facebook content moderation decisions and upheld one. Following the announcement, Facebook announced that (as it had promised) it followed all of the Oversight Board's decisions and reinstated the content on the overturned cases (in one case, involving taking down a breast cancer ad that had been deemed to violate the "no nudity" policy, Facebook actually reinstated the content last year, after the Board announced it was reviewing that decision). If you don't want to wade into the details, NPR's write-up of the decisions and policy recommendations is quite well done and easily digestible.

If you want a more detailed and thoughtful analysis of the decisions and what this all means, I highly recommend Evelyn Douek's detailed analysis of the key takeaways from the rulings.

What I'm going to discuss, however, is how the decisions seem to have only reinforced... absolutely everyone's opinions of the Oversight Board. I've said before that I think the Oversight Board is a worthwhile experiment, and one worth watching, but it is just one experiment. And, as such, it is bound to make mistakes and adapt over time. I can understand the reasoning behind each of the five decisions, though I'm not sure I would have ruled the same way.

What's more interesting to me, though, is how so many people are completely locked in to their original view of the board, and how insistent they are that the first decisions only confirm their position. It's no secret that many people absolutely hate Facebook and view absolutely everything the company does as unquestionably evil. I'm certainly not a fan of many of the company's practices, and don't think that the Oversight Board is as important as some make it out to be, but that doesn't mean it's not worth paying attention to.

But I tended to see a few different responses to the first rulings, which struck me as amusing, since the positions are simply not disprovable:

1. The Oversight Board is just here to rubberstamp Facebook's decisions and make it look like there's some level of review.

This narrative is slightly contradicted by the fact that the Oversight Board overturned four decisions. However, people who believe this view retort that "well, of course the initial decisions have to do this to pretend to be independent." Which... I guess? But seems like a lot of effort for no real purpose. To me, at least, the first five decisions are not enough to make a judgment call on this point either way. Let's see what happens over a longer time frame.

2. The Oversight Board is just a way for Facebook and Zuckerberg not to take real responsibility

I don't see how this one is supportable. It's kind of a no-win situation either way. Every other company in the world that does content moderation has a final say on their decisions, because it's their website. Facebook is basically the first and only site so far to hand off those decisions to a 3rd party -- and it did so after a ton of people whined that Facebook had too much power. And the fact that this body is now pushing back on Facebook's decisions suggests that there's at least some initial evidence that the Board might force Zuckerberg to take more responsibility. Indeed, the policy recommendations (not just the decisions directly on content moderation) suggest that the Board is taking its role as being an independent watchdog over how Facebook operates somewhat seriously. But, again, it's perhaps too early to tell, and this will be a point worth watching.

3. The Oversight Board has no real power, so it doesn't matter what they do.

The thing is, while this may be technically true, I'm not sure it matters. If Facebook actually does follow through and agree to abide by the Board's rulings, and the Board continues the initial path it's set of being fairly critical of Facebook's practices, then for all intents and purposes it does have real power. Sometimes, the power comes just from the fact that Facebook may feel generally committed to following through, rather than through any kind of actual enforcement mechanism.

4. The Oversight Board is only reviewing a tiny number of cases, so who cares?

This is clearly true, but again, the question is how it will matter in the long run. At least from the initial set of decisions, it's clear that the Oversight Board is not just taking a look at the specific cases in front of it, but thinking through the larger principles at stake, and making recommendations back to Facebook about how to implement better policies. That could have a very big impact on how Facebook operates over time.

As for my take on all of this? As mentioned up top, I think this is a worthwhile experiment, though I've long doubted it would have that big of an impact on Facebook itself. I see no reason to change my opinion on that yet, but I am surprised at the thoroughness of these initial decisions and how far they go in pushing back on certain Facebook policies. I guess I'd update my opinion to say I've moved from thinking the Oversight Board had a 20% chance of having a meaningful impact, to now it being maybe 25 to 30% likely. Some will cynically argue that this is all for show, and the first cases had to be like that. And perhaps that's true. I guess that's why no one is forced to set their opinion in stone just yet, and we'll have plenty of time to adjust as more decisions come out.

Filed Under: appeals, breast cancer, content moderation, free speech, myanmar, nudity, review
Companies: facebook, oversight board

Content Moderation At Scale Is Impossible: Facebook Still Can't Figure Out How To Deal With Naked Breasts

from the this-again? dept

Like a teenaged heterosexual boy, it appears that Facebook has no clue how to deal with naked female breasts. Going back over a decade, the quintessential example used to show the impossibility of coming up with clear, reasonable rules for content moderation at scale is Facebook and breasts. In the early days, as Facebook realized it needed to do some content moderation, and had to establish a clear set of rules that could be applied consistently by a larger team, it started with a simple "no nudity" policy -- and then after that raised questions, it was narrowed down to define female nipples as forbidden. As a wonderful episode of Radiolab detailed last year, questions kept getting raised about how specific do you need to be (each paragraph here is a different speaker, but since Radiolab doesn't supply transcripts, I'm not entirely sure who's speaking):

So, for example, by then, nudity was already not allowed on the site. But they had no definition for nudity. They just said "no nudity." And so the site integrity team -- those 12 people at the time -- they realized that they had to start spelling out exactly what they meant.

Precisely. All of these people at Facebook were in charge of trying to define nudity.

The first cut at it was "visible male and female genitalia." And then "visible female breasts." And then the question is "well, okay, how much of a breast needs to be showing before it's nude?" And the thing that we landed on was, if you could see essentially the nipple and areola, then that's nudity. And would have to be taken down.

This might have seemed like a straightforward rule... until mothers posting breastfeeding photos started complaining -- as they did after a bunch of their photos got blocked. Stories about this go back at least until 2008 when the Guardian reported on the issue, after a bunch of mothers started protesting the company, leading Facebook to come up with this incredibly awkward statement defending the practice:

"Photos containing a fully exposed breast, as defined by showing the nipple or areola, do violate those terms (on obscene, pornographic or sexually explicit material) and may be removed," he said in a statement. "The photos we act upon are almost exclusively brought to our attention by other users who complain."

More public pressure, and more public protests, resulted in Facebook adjusting its policy to allow breastfeeding, but photos still kept getting taken down, leading the company to have to keep changing and clarifying its policy, such as in this statement from 2012.

When it comes to uploaded photos on Facebook, the vast majority of breastfeeding photos comply with our Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, which closely mirrors the policy that governs broadcast television, and which places limitations on nudity due to the presence of minors on our site. On some occasions, breastfeeding photos contain nudity – for example an exposed breast that is not being used for feeding – and therefore violate our terms. When such photos are reported to us and are found to violate our policies, the person who posted the photo is contacted, and the photos are removed. Our policies strive to fit the needs of a diverse community while respecting everyone¹s interest in sharing content that is important to them, including experiences related to breastfeeding.

In the Radiolab episode they pointed out that photos of babies sleeping after having breastfed were getting taken down because the baby's head was no longer blocking the nipple.

In 2014, Facebook clarified its policies on nipples again:

“Our goal has always been to strike an appropriate balance between the interests of people who want to express themselves with the interests of others who may not want to see certain kinds of content,” a Facebook spokesperson told the Daily Dot. “It is very hard to consistently make the right call on every photo that may or may not contain nudity that is reported to us, particularly when there are billions of photos and pieces of content being shared on Facebook every day, and that has sometimes resulted in content being removed mistakenly.

“What we have done is modified the way we review reports of nudity to help us better examine the context of the photo or image,” the spokesperson continued. “As a result of this, photos that show a nursing mothers’ other breast will be allowed even if it is fully exposed, as will mastectomy photos showing a fully exposed other breast.”

Right. And then, just a few months later, people started protesting again, as more breastfeeding photos were taken down.

Again in the Radiolab program, they then discuss how this gets even more confusing, as some people started posting photos of "breast feeding porn" that appeared to show breast feeding that wasn't infants. So they modified the rule to say the breastfeeding individual had to be an infant. But how does Facebook determine who is and who is not an infant? We're right back to the definitional problem. The original rule Facebook put in place was "does the kid look old enough to walk?" which raises other problems, since many kids breastfeed long after they can walk. Facebook has to keep amending and changing. It eventually allows one (just one) nipple/areola showing if it appears related to breastfeeding... then after some time a second one could be shown.

But as Radiolab documented, every time you set a definition, a new exception comes up. In the midst of the breastfeeding mess, this happens:

Literally every time this team at Facebook would would come up with a rule that they thought was airtight--ka-plop--something would show up that they that they weren't prepared for, that the rule hadn't accounted for.

As soon as you think, "yeah, this is good" like the next day something shows up to show you, yeah, you didn't think about this.

For example, sometime around 2011, this content moderator is is going through a queue of things--accept, reject, accept, escalate, accept--and she comes upon this image: the photo itself was a teenage girl, african by dress and skin, breastfeeding a goat -- a baby goat. And the moderator throws their hands up and said "what the fuck is this?"

And we Googled breastfeeding goats and found that this was a thing. It turns out it's a survival practice according to what they found, this is a tradition in Kenya that goes back centuries, that in a drought, a known way to help your herd get through the drought is to, if you if you have a woman who's lactating, you have her nurse the kid, the baby goat, along with her human kid. And so there's nothing sexual about it.

.... And theoretically if we go point by point through this list: it's an infant--it sort of could walk so maybe there's an issue there--but there's physical contact between the mouth and the nipple. But (obviously) breastfeeding as we intended, anyway, meant human infants. And so, in that moment, what they decide to do is remove the photo. And there was an amendment, an asterisk, under the rule stating "animals are not babies." So in any future cases people would know what to do.

This then raised new problems and so on and so on.

And so consider me not at all surprised that Facebook is still facing this very same issue. Late last week there were reports in Australia of some (reasonably) outraged people, who were angry that Facebook was taking down a series of ads for breast cancer survivors.

Facebook has come under fire from outraged breast cancer awareness groups after it banned online advertisements that featured topless survivors, claiming they violated the platform’s nudity policy.

The Breast Cancer Network of Australia (BCNA), in partnership with Bakers Delight, launched its annual Pink Bun Campaign yesterday to raise awareness and money for charity.

As the article notes, the ads showed "10 topless breast cancer survivors holding cupcakes to their chests". In another article Facebook gives its reasoning, which again reflects much of the history discussed above:

Facebook said it rejected the ads because they did not contain any education about the disease or teach women how to examine their breasts.

It said since the ads were selling a product, they were held to a higher standard than other images because people could not block ads the way they could block content from pages they followed.

So, clearly, over time the rule has evolved so that there's some sort of amendment saying that there needs to be an educational component if you're showing breasts related to breast cancer (remember, above, years back, Facebook had already declared that mastectomy photos are okay, and at least some of these ads do show post-mastectomy photos).

The charity in question is furious about this and calls the whole thing "nonsensical," but it's actually the opposite of that. It's totally "sensical" once you understand much of the history, and the fact that Facebook keeps having to change and adapt these rules, often multiple times a month, to deal with the "new" cases that keep showing up that don't quite match. And you could (and many do) argue that it's "obvious" why these ads should be allowed, but you forget that the company can't just rely on something being "obvious." It has over 10,000 people it employs who are in charge of making these decisions, and what's obvious to one of them may not be obvious to another. And thus it needs clearly spelled out rules.

And those rules will never encompass every possible situation, and we'll continue to see stories like this basically forever. We keep saying that content moderation at scale is impossible to do well, and part of that is because of stories like this. You can't create rules that work in every case, and there are more edge cases than you can possibly imagine.

Filed Under: breast cancer, breastfeeding, breasts, content moderation, content moderation at scale
Companies: facebook

Facebook's Arbitrary Offensiveness Police Take Down Informational Video About Breast Cancer Screening

from the bunch-of-boobs dept

Stories of Facebook's attempt at puritanical patrols of its site are legion at this point. The site has demonstrated it cannot filter out parody, artwork, simple speech in the form of outrage, iconic historical photos, or sculpture from its prude-patrol censorship. As a private company, Facebook is of course allowed to follow its own whim when it comes to what is allowed on its site, but as an important tool in this era for communication and speech, the company is also a legitimate target for derision when it FUBARs this as badly as it does so often.

So queue up the face-palming once more, as Facebook has decided to remove a video posted by a Swedish cancer charity informing women how to check for breast cancer, because the video included animated breasts, and breasts are icky icky.

Facebook has removed a video on breast cancer awareness posted in Sweden after deeming the images offensive, the Swedish Cancer Society said on Thursday. The video, displaying animated figures of women with circle-shaped breasts, was aimed at explaining to women how to check for suspicious lumps. Sweden’s Cancerfonden said it had tried in vain to contact Facebook, and had decided to appeal against the decision to remove the video.

Based on images on Cancerfonden's site, the tantalizing breasts in question were of the variety of stick figures. Not exactly tantalizing in its imagery, the video content was instead supposed to educate women on the proper method for detecting lumps that could be cancerous. Save for perhaps some minor percentage of humankind, these are the types of images that don't conjure a sexual connotation. And yet Facebook took them down.

To the social media giant's credit, it eventually put the video back up on its site and apologized.

In a statement to the BBC, a spokeswoman for Facebook said the images of the Swedish campaign had now been approved.

"We're very sorry, our team processes millions of advertising images each week, and in some instances we incorrectly prohibit ads," she said. "This image does not violate our ad policies. We apologise for the error and have let the advertiser know we are approving their ads."

Which, you know, fine, but exactly how many of these types of stories must be endured before Facebook acknowledges that there is a problem with its filtering and censorship process? I don't think the exclusion of oversight is the answer, but I would hope that we could agree that if the takedown filters continue to catch bronze statues and breast cancer videos in its net, perhaps some recalibration is needed.

Filed Under: arbitrary, breast cancer, breasts, social media, takedowns
Companies: facebook

DailyDirt: Super-Human Abilities, Not Just For X-Men

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Human genetic studies are pointing to more and more interesting information about how our bodies work and develop and ultimately fail. Optimists point to using this knowledge for the improvement of the human condition, but there are some obvious counter-arguments to this viewpoint. So far, though, the technology for genetic therapies or designer babies hasn't been anywhere near perfected, giving us some time to reflect on the possibilities and pitfalls. Unfortunately, our inherent biases in what we're looking at in our genome might prove to be our own undoing.

• Naturally-occurring genetic mutations happen all the time, and some of them could lead to treatments for serious diseases... or better than average abilities. Timothy Dreyer has an unusually high bone density mutation that could help treat osteoporosis, and there are other mutants that could be added to a registered database of mutants (without the help of Professor X). [url]
• Breast size genetics is being studied... to determine if there are any correlations to the incidence of breast cancer. Apparently, at least seven genetic factors are associated with breast size, and three of those are linked to breast cancer. [url]
• People with a condition called aphakia can see in the ultraviolet region of light -- normally invisible to most humans. Most people can distinguish about a million different colors, but others can perceive orders of magnitude more. Certainly, there are limits to human vision, but it's still amazing to think that people can see galaxies millions of light-years away on a clear night with the naked eye. [url]

After you've finished checking out those links, take a look at our Daily Deals for cool gadgets and other awesome stuff.

Filed Under: aphakia, breast cancer, cancer, dna, gattaca, gene therapy, genetics, health, medicine, mutants, timothy dreyer
Companies: 23andme

Australian Court Disagrees With US: Claim Genes Are Totally Patentable

from the sucks-to-be-DownUnder dept

Last year, the Supreme Court made an important ruling in the Myriad Genetics case, effectively saying that genes aren't patentable, even if you can separate them out from the rest of a strand of DNA. Myriad Genetics had isolated two key genes related to breast cancer, BRCA1 and BRCA2 and argued that only it could test for those genes, because of its patent. The Supreme Court soundly rejected that, noting that you cannot patent something in nature, and clearly Myriad did not "make" the genes. Unfortunately, as we'd noted just a few months earlier, a court in Australia had come to the opposite conclusion, saying that Myriad Genetics had legitimate patents on BRCA1 and BRCA2. That case was appealed, and there was some hope that after the US's ruling, higher courts in Australia might see the light. Not yet apparently. An appeals court has agreed that genes are patentable Down Under, which means that such important genetic tests there are likely to be much more expensive and limited.

You can read the full ruling here if you'd like. The case can still be appealed to the Australian High Court, so perhaps it will take the same trajectory as in the US, where it needed the Supreme Court to finally point out the absolute insanity of patenting genes. Though, frankly, if Australia does keeps genes patentable, it might make for an interesting natural experiment to see how much innovation and research happens in both places -- one with, and one without, patents.

Filed Under: australia, brca1, brca2, breast cancer, dna, genes, patents
Companies: myriad genetics

Myriad Mocks Supreme Court's Ruling On Gene Patents; Sues New Competitors Doing Breast Cancer Tests

from the chutzpah dept

Remember how, just a month ago, the Supreme Court had struck down gene patents in the Myriad case? If you don't recall, Myriad claimed, effectively, to have patented the isolated BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, which are indicators of a likelihood for developing breast cancer. As such, they blocked anyone else from doing tests to find those two genes, and charged a whopping $4,000 or so for anyone who wanted the test. The Supreme Court, thankfully, tossed out those claims, noting that Myriad "did not create or alter any of the genetic information" in those genes, and that if found valid, it would "give it the exclusive right to isolate an individual’s BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes." That's obviously crazy, so it was good that the Supreme Court rejected those claims.

Immediately after that, a few competitors jumped into the space, offering BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing -- for significantly lower prices. And, Myriad wasted very little time in suing them all for patent infringement. Huh? The short version is that Myriad claims that the Supreme Court merely removed five total claims out of its patents, and it still has 515 remaining claims across 24 patents -- and these tests violate those:

As of the morning of June 13, 2013, Plaintiffs collectively had 24 patents containing 520 claims concerning two genes (BRCA1 and BRCA2), and methods of use and synthetic compositions of matter related thereto. On June 13, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that five patent claims covering isolated naturally occurring DNA were not patent-eligible, thereby reducing the overall patent estate to 24 patents and 515 patent claims. This case involves none of those five rejected claims.

The filing goes on to suggest that the Supreme Court ruling really didn't mean very much at all. In many ways, this really does appear to be Myriad giving the middle finger to the Supreme Court. As Tim Lee notes, if Myriad's interpretation of the Supreme Court ruling is correct, then the Court's ruling is effectively meaningless, because Myriad (and anyone else) can effectively write patents for genes by just changing how they structure the patents:

The patent claims the Supreme Court invalidated last month were “composition of matter” claims, covering the chemical structure of the BRCA genes. But Myriad’s patents also have “method” claims covering processes for diagnosing breast cancer. And while these patents use different language than the composition-of-matter patents the high court invalidated, their practical effect on the genetic testing market could be very similar.

Consider Patent 6,951,721, one of the patents cited by Myriad in its lawsuit against competitor Ambry Genetics. It claims the concept of diagnosing breast cancer by “determining the nucleotide sequence of the BRCA1 gene” from a “female individual” and then checking for mutations at specific points on the gene. The patent isn’t limited to any particular technology for isolating or sequencing the patient’s BRCA1 gene. So while it’s not technically a patent on the BRCA1 gene, it might as well be.

Of course, as you look over the details, it seems like Myriad is still going to be in trouble. Effectively, the claims it's relying on may appear to be more similar to a patent on the diagnostic process itself. But, that's a problem for Myriad, because in the big Prometheus Labs case, which the Supreme Court decided a year ago, and which it relied on in the Myriad case itself, medical diagnostics aren't patentable either.

It seems like Myriad is just trying to squeeze some more money out of these patents before it gets smacked down again. Of course, not everyone agrees. Dennis Crouch seems to think they have a "very strong case," while PubPat's outspoken Dan Ravicher feels otherwise:

PubPat director Dan Ravicher, e-mailing Ars from Beijing, described Myriad's new suits as a way to save face with Wall Street. He said the Supreme Court decision was a "total loss" for Myriad, and the synthetic cDNA they are focused on now is not needed for genetic testing. "I am confident they will lose these cases, too, so long as the defendants have the financial resources and institutional desire to fight," said Ravicher.

Of course, it's that last bit that's the challenge. Any such case will take years and millions of dollars. And, during that time some may just choose to settle, and if lower courts side with Myriad and issue injunctions it can be a big risk for the competitors in the space. The end result may work in Myriad's favor even if these cases are completely bogus: it's likely to scare away competitors, and keep the prices of its breast cancer gene tests very high, making it much more likely people will die. I do wonder how Myriad's execs look at themselves in the mirror. There is no reason for doing what they're doing other than to enrich themselves, while ensuring that more women will die from undetected breast cancer. Sickening.

While the FTC has claimed that it's going to go after patent trolls, this seems like another situation where they, along with the DOJ, should also look into Myriad. While it may not be a traditional "troll," there's certainly a strong argument to be made that the company is abusing patents in a manner this is likely to lead to much higher prices for consumers, especially following the Supreme Court rejecting the very premise that they're now relying on in these new lawsuits -- that no one but Myriad can offer tests for BRCA1 and BRCA2. One hopes that the FTC decides to expand its "investigations" into companies like Myriad.

Filed Under: brca1, brca2, breast cancer, cancer, gene patents, lawsuits, patents
Companies: myriad genetics

Australian Court Says Genes Are Patentable

from the sweat-of-the-brow? dept

While the US Supreme Court will soon be weighing in on whether or not genes are patentable in the Myriad Genetics case, we've also been following a similar case in Australia. There, a bunch of cancer patients took Myriad to court, arguing that the patent on BRCA1 is invalid (this same gene is part of the US case). Unfortunately, the court has decided that genes are, in fact, patentable if they've been isolated. This is always the key point of contention with gene patent supporters. They claim that it's the fact that they can separate the gene that makes their work patentable. In some ways this is an odd sort of "sweat of the brow" argument for patents -- and here, the judge is buying the argument completely. He says that patenting genes in the human body would be a problem... but isolating them magically makes it a different story.

There is no doubt that naturally occurring DNA and RNA as they exist inside the cells of the human body cannot be the subject of a valid patent. However, the disputed claims do not cover naturally occurring DNA and RNA as they exist inside such cells. The disputed claims extend only to naturally occurring DNA and RNA which have been extracted from cells obtained from the human body and purged of other biological materials with which they were associated.

This still seems ridiculous to me. If others figure out how to get an isolated gene as well, why should that be subject to a patent? Hopefully this is not a preview of the US Supreme Court's upcoming ruling.

Filed Under: australia, brca1, breast cancer, cancer, genes, patents
Companies: myriad, myriad genetics

TSA Force Breast Cancer Patient To Submit To Patdown, Refuse To Let Her Show ID Card About Implants

from the feeling-safer? dept

Another day, another ridiculous story about the TSA "making us safer." This one was submitted by plenty of folks, but Guy Thomas gets credit for being first. It involves a breast cancer patient, Lori Dorn, who recently had a bilateral mastectomy, and has tissue expanders installed. She has a card that explains the details of this, and why it can set off airport security. Of course, she did set off an alarm at JFK... and then the TSA both refused to let her show the card explaining the details, but also required her to be physically groped by the TSA -- with them loudly threatening her that she wouldn't fly otherwise. They also kept her out of sight from her luggage:

I told her that I was not comfortable with having my breasts touched and that I had a card in my wallet that explains the type of expanders, serial numbers and my doctor�s information (pictured) and asked to retrieve it. This request was denied. Instead, she called over a female supervisor who told me the exam had to take place. I was again told that I could not retrieve the card and needed to submit to a physical exam in order to be cleared. She then said, �And if we don�t clear you, you don�t fly� loud enough for other passengers to hear. And they did. And they stared at the bald woman being yelled at by a TSA Supervisor.

To my further dismay, my belongings, including my computer, were completely out of sight. I had no choice but to allow an agent to touch my breasts in front of other passengers.

As Dorn explains, "I have been through emotional and physical hell this past year due to breast cancer. The way I was treated by these TSA agents added a shitload of insult to injury and caused me a great deal of humiliation." In a separate interview with the NY Times, she notes that her breasts still hurt, and she was worried about the pain of the patdown, and that she was never offered the option of a patdown in a private area (as the TSA insists they grant). That article also contains a typical PR-laden response from the TSA:

We strive to treat every passenger with dignity and respect. In this case, that may not have happened. During the screening process, if advanced imaging technology detects an anomaly that cannot be cleared, secondary screening is required to ensure the passenger does not have threat items, such as explosives concealed under clothing.

All passengers may request private secondary screening. While an initial review indicates that proper screening procedures were followed, we regret that this passenger did not have a positive experience.

Which, of course, brings to mind a simple question: does anyone actually have a positive experience dealing with the TSA patdowns?

Filed Under: breast cancer, lori dorn, pat down, tsa

Breast Cancer Charity Bullying Other Charities Over Trademark

from the for-the-cure dept

A few months back we had a few submissions over some claims by the "Susan G. Komen for the Cure" operation was being a trademark bully, and threatening other charities that were using the color pink. SGK is the big name in raising money for breast cancer research, but a new article highlights how it's also spending over a million dollars a year being a trademark bully: specifically going after anyone else who uses the phrase "for the cure" or "for a cure" as part of their own charitable fundraising. The organization claims that it "needs" to do this to protect its trademark, but as we've pointed out time and time again, that's simply not true. First, you could argue that raising money for charity is not "use in commerce" and thus not deserving of a trademark. On top of that, the phrase "for the cure" certainly sounds descriptive, and again perhaps doesn't deserve a trademark

But, even assuming that the trademark itself is valid, there are all sorts of ways it could deal with other charities using that phrase without acting like a legal bully. It could simply agree to license the mark at no cost to other legitimate charities. SGK's claim, of course, is that it doesn't want the phrase to get sullied by unscrupulous organizations, but that doesn't mean it needs to pull out the legal guns when a legitimate charity comes along. Just let them use the damn phrase, and let everyone help raise money for charity, rather than legal bills.

Filed Under: breast cancer, charity, for the cure, trademark
Companies: susan g. komen