Match Group file multiple lawsuits after repeated failed acquisition offer

Perhaps part of the role of the judge is to understand, and correct for, this imbalance - but I'm not sure how effective that is.

But back to the point, rules on legal costs, punitive fees and so on, all fall down when "the boot is on the other foot." There is no way for the small guy to take a big guy to court if legal costs are always paid by the loser, never mind punitive damages.

Equally while it's popular to default to evil-corp (with good reason) it's also important for big-Corp to have, and be able to defend, their intellectual property.

Writing rules that allow for fairness under all these conditions, inside a system that incentives combatents (lawyers) to maximise personal profitability, is, well, tricky.

If you don't believe in trademarking a common word, the Windows trademark wouldn't be valid and Lindows would not be infringing.

More broadly & theoretically: Nothing is necessary to encourage innovation. Innovation Happens; its a by-product of both human nature and capitalistic economic systems. Creativity-based IP (ex: developing a cool new video game character) is most often a by-product of necessity in human nature to express ones inner creativity. Technology-based IP (ex: developing a new drug) is most often a by-product of necessity in market-based economic systems; if enough people exist to buy it, it will be developed.

Secrecy, as it exists today within a non-legal context, would still exist without any IP protection, and is generally adequate to reach first-to-market. In addition to domain expertise, of course.

Caveat: there's a delineation between, for lack of a better term, "product-based distribution rights" versus much more ephemeral intellectual property. For example, Disney produces Iron Man the movie, versus Iron Man the character. One is a product; the other is pure intellectual property. Or: Remdesivir the pill, versus the Remdesivir formulation and chemical structure. It makes far more sense to me that Iron Man the movie should still have access to strong legal protection, in the form of stopping unwanted distribution; but that is separate from controlling access to Iron Man the character.

Caveat: ip laws are oftentimes leveraged in a consumer protection angle (especially trademarks). Again, this feels like a situation where we started with ip laws, then said "oh thank goodness we can use these laws to protect consumers", rather than starting with the generally laudable goal of protecting consumers then working backward to arrive at laws which can do that. In other words, the argument is always "you're using the word 'match' in your company name, you're deceiving consumers" and not "you're deceiving consumers, and here's a list of reasons why, one of which is the usage of 'match' in your name". Copying a name is evidence of an offense; not an offense itself.

The issue is: Copying can be innovative. Everyone stands on the shoulders of giants, and innovation comes in many forms. There is innovation in the original creation; but original creation is not alone an application of intellectual property to benefit humanity in an equitable & accessible way. Quite literally, its the same argument as the old "ideas are a dime a dozen; its the execution that matters"; because it really is. Inventing a life-saving drug should not be rewarded; being able to produce it at massive scale, for an affordable price, should be rewarded. And free market economic systems (with FDA-like quality control, of course) do that really well.

Ideally, the same company can do both; and stepping back ip laws would actually add pressure to accomplish just that.

Final argument against: Some intellectual creations are just really expensive to produce, and may never be produced if an ROI can't be guaranteed with ip laws. There are two issues with this argument:

First: What if it isn't actually legitimately expensive to produce? IP laws are baked in to everything at this point; companies know they can charge whatever they want for some product, because they have intellectual property protection; and that means they can inflate their inefficiencies in producing it. Its similar reasoning to student loan bankruptcy protection being a reason why higher education has gotten so expensive in the US; why not be inefficient? Removing ip protection could actually increase efficiency by forcing companies to optimize research & delivery (or more accurately; inefficient companies who can no longer hide behind the shield of ip protection will be replaced by more efficient organizations who can produce the same thing cheaper).

Second: Ok; Something is legitimately insanely expensive to produce. The only great example anyone ever provides in this category is drugs. And its a good example; novel drugs can be really expensive to produce, test, etc. So, the company wants an ROI; and that means philosophically holding a gun to a patient's head and saying "you're gonna die without this, now buy it". This is not ok; and it should be somewhere that public funding steps in.

The point of this rant is not to assert change that any western country needs to implement; because we never will. More-so just an intellectual argument.

Intense...

Maybe the BBC should of been sharper on their trademarks or like many - thought it was so common, who would allow it.

This company knows that, that’s why they settled.