I’m JD, co-founder of Raygun (https://raygun.com). We’re a paid alternative in crash report logging and user performance metrics. We’ve been operating for years, not reliant on VCs, and are HQ’d in New Zealand.
I’ve met with many customers over recent months who have told me quite plainly that they have been told none of their data is to go into any AI/LLM system. This is often coming from legal and many understand this may not apply forever, but for now it’s a hard no. While many of these were large organizations, the message was almost universal.
To that end, at Raygun we have always run the business as though all data we receive is the customers’ data. Treat it how I’d want our data treated by one of our suppliers. As we look to release our own AI capabilities this year, we’ve been making it clear that these will be opt-in features. We take the role of being trusted with customer data very seriously, and the trust that is placed in us. We’re already compliant with standards like GDPR and tracking what’s coming around AI rules is something I think we’re all paying close attention to also.
Happy to chat with anyone looking, can match budgets: jdtrask@raygun.com
I don’t know if we should be so casually derisive about this after reading the article. I kind of see JD’s side of things, enough to at least make the case that they have a legitimate claim. The case raises an interesting question about what constitutes parody, because the product in question certainly seems to barely straddle the line between parody and a legitimate attempt to profit off the trademark. I’ll be quite curious to see how the judges decide.
Isn’t the trademark unenforceable in that case because Jack Daniel’s the drink and the book are in totally different markets and trademarks only apply if you’re competing in the same space.
No. Trademark does NOT only apply if you are competing in the same space. Yes, in general that is true. BUT you also can't make it look like a well known company is now competing in a different space.
Take the dog toy example. It looks like a bottle of Jack Daniels, uses the same logo except it is called "Bad Spaniels" with a dog on it. BUT will the average consumer think this toy was sold by Jack Daniels? If so, that can potentially hurt the Jack Daniels brand, and is thus a no no. Now (I am NOT a lawyer) if they called it a Jack Daniels dog toy, but used a completely different logo and didn't make it look like a bottle of Jack Daniels, they may have a case that it isn't trademark infringment.
In this case of Monster, I don't think there is any chance that anyone would think that the word "Monster" in the title refers to the energy drink (unless there was the triple slash logo used in the game)
On the other hand, Monster Energy DOES own a trademark of the word "Monster" in the video game arena. (But with 1800 other "monster" related trademarks, I think this will be tough for Monster Energy to win)
You’re making the almost certainly false assumption that Jack Daniels doesn’t have a long history of publishing printed material with this design that well predates this author, including books.
> A judge would likely decide that, sure. After you've engaged $$$ representation and wasted months of your time defending it.
For stupid things like this, where the stakes are so low[1], I'd be tempted to represent myself[2]. It'll still cost me hours to appear in court, but it will be much less money than if I paid a lawyer and it will cost me a lot less than the other party[3].
TBH, every person of average intelligence should be taught the basics of defending a claim in their jurisdiction: what steps are involved, what paperwork to file at each step, where to file it, what deadlines there are, how to request extensions for deadlines, what constitutes evidence, how to get written testimonies under oath, etc.[4]
These things are not hard, and for low-stakes things there's a greater expected value in taking the gamble on self-representation than in hiring an attorney. Much of the time, for low-value claims, you can simply show up and request that the matter be moved to small-claims court[5]. Most courts actually would prefer to move a suit for $1k to a small claims court.
[1] Where the product made a total of maybe $1k, the damages are going to be under $100, and that's maybe too high too, because losing this would mean changing the game's name (or even only the font in the title), which is going to be cheaper than even 2 hours of an attorneys time. The only real danger is cost orders against the defendant, but these are a) rare, and b) decided by the court, using the context of what both parties spent. You aren't going to represent yourself and get hit with a cost order for $100k.
[2] I'm not a lawyer and I'm not in the US, but I've represented myself multiple times for things that were much less obvious, and defended all successfully. Courts aren't stupid; all you see in the news when courts make stupid decisions are the outliers. You don't see the thousands of sensible decisions a judge made each month.
[3] So it'll be an expensive lesson for Monster if they decide to drag it out. I'll lose billable hours for myself. They'll lose money and goodwill.
[4] I found, in my district, that the court is very patient with any person defending themselves and would take the time to explain all of the above even in session, and adjourn for the defendant to perform all the steps that were explained.
[5] Small claims don't usually handle trademark infringement claims, though, so not in this particular case.
There is a limit though. Always consider "how would this look in front of a judge". There should be a cost paid for being overly litigious in this regard.
It's more like Xerox probably sort of liked that people viewed them as interchangeable with the act of photocopying, but eventually this had textbook consequences for their ability to prevent people from using their name for things they didn't like.
I personally would have suggested offering you a license to use the web address, but for whatever reason that ilk of lawyers prefer antisocial methodologies.
The Aspirin and Heroin trademark revocations were punitive and due to the war, not due to lack of proper defense.
That’s why you will see non-Bayer acetylsalicylic acid literally marketed as “Aspirin” but even though the Kleenex trademark is considerably weakened, you still don’t see competitors openly labeling their products with the name.
"Hey, can you xerox me a few copies of this document real quick? Yeah, just use the Canon all-in-one on my desk." Little clunky, but I'm certain it's been said somewhere/somewhen.
Ultimate test of a good place though if you ask when young.
I asked for my first grad role. I asked a lot of probing questions. 3 years in I was running teams and setting up operations for the business in another country for them. I even told them I’d be leaving to start my own business after this job (and did). This resonated because I was speaking to their founder at the time and knew we’d be cut from the same clothe.
Holding yourself back at a young age can just stunt your career development. Asking such questions will appeal to the right employer.
Unsurprisingly this one went from 35 to 150 staff, profitably in the 3 years I worked there. I was 22 when setting up other parts of their business. I’d started at 19.
I wouldn’t advise folks to avoid such questions just because they’re young or “need the job”. Stand out! You’re even more likely to get the job.
As noted by others here: if they react poorly to this in the interview, you already won by dodging a bullet.
I think you missed my point, some (possibly most) literally can't afford to do what you're suggesting early in their life. It comes from a place of financial and psychological security.
I suppose it also depends on your country, but at least here in the USA, that's hard to come by (especially for the lower / middle class).
Being able to be discerning about a job is a privilege that not everyone has. As someone who finally can, I'm happy to acknowledge that rather than pretend other folks are doing something wrong.
I don't disagree that they'd be dodging a bullet, but some folks have to take a bullet to get health insurance, pay the bills, and god knows what else given their circumstances :)
Exactly, you can keep 100 million so there's no doubt you'll have an extremely comfortable life and then put your billions make a difference, if you really mean it.
Correct. The current zero point energy is believed to be a false vacuum (local minimum). One of the end-of-the-universe scenarios involve it tunelling to a lower state (bubble nucleation). Things become progressively more dire the lower the energy of the next (false or real) vaccum is, including matter and gravity ceasing to exist. Not only does this sound a lot like "no information at absolute zero," it is also a terrifying existential crisis (you're welcome).
Well I understand that information, like energy, cannot be destroyed (hence Hawking radiation) so it couldn't just be reduced to zero, it'd have to be transformed. Also the parent's argument about freezing and then reheating to destroy and restore information is a good one because that would be reversing entropy in a closed system (assuming the info was indeed destroyed) and thus impossible.
IANA physicist though, just a lay person with an interest in information theory.
According to the paper, the amount of information that can be stored decreases as one gets closer to absolute zero. Our current information storage technologies and refrigeration technologies don't let us actually test this, but with a high enough information density and a low enough temperature, one should expect to lose information if this theory were true.
The final season of Goliath [0] is very much inspired by the opioid crisis and deals with a lawyer suing the family. Hopefully real life lawsuits will be inspired by the outcomes in the series ;-)
Another highly recommended series to watch.
I'd also like to recommend HBO's 'The Crime of the Century' documentary. It's a two part docu and was directed by Alex Gibney (who won an Emmy and an Oscar). [1] Trailer is available [2]. It details the whole opioid crisis and the role of Purdue and Sacklers.
Might vary from region to region I guess. I’m in Europe and the following page indicates that it’s on Disney+ here currently https://www.disneyplus.com/en-gb/series/dopesick/vaEHfF8OZHU... but it might redirect for people in the US or say not available or something.
Also I don’t have Disney+ so I don’t know if the page applies to all of Europe even.
Edit: Yeah I tried to archive a copy of it and for archive.is it got redirected to the Disney+ home page so probably that’s what you will see too. Meanwhile, archive.org was able to capture it without being redirected. So whether the link will show info about the show or just redirect is probably region dependent. Those kinds of redirects are the most annoying btw. At least they ought to give a message like “this show is not available in your region”. Kind of surprised that archive.org didn’t get redirected actually – I had thought the servers archive.org used for capturing pages were in the US. And I thought archive.is were capturing from Europe.
Disney+ there is a kids section and the broader(not for kiddies) sections which has HBO, STAR world etc. Dopesick is in the [not for kiddies] section. This is in India, it maybe same in other regions.
