Last week it seems that Republicans managed to purloin a Democratic memo relating to the Senate Intelligence committee — either from a computer or a trash can. At the same time, someone was stealing Democratic memos relating to the Senate Judiciary committee: Apparent Theft Of Democratic Memos Probed (washingtonpost.com).
Republican hacker at large?
Brad DeLong expresses doubt as to whether (as I noted earlier that the Evening Standard had reported) even the Bush administration could be quite dumb enough to be strong-arming US defense firms in hopes of getting them to close up shop abroad and bring jobs to the US:
I do not believe this. I cannot believe this. Incompetent, short-sighted, ungrateful, and mendacious as we all know the George W. Bush administration to be, even they wouldn't do something as stupid and counterproductive as this.
Would they?
I understand Brad's reluctance. Like him, I don't want to think that our leaders can be that dumb. And the Evening Standard is not the gold standard for reporting.
Trouble is, it's not that easy to figure out exactly whether the Director-General of the Confederation of British Industry Mr. Digby Jones actually said what was reported in the Evening Standard. The text of the speech doesn't seem to be online. I've e-mailed the Confederation of British Industry in the hopes they will send it to me.
In the mean time, we have to make do with the newspapers. The usually reliable Financial Times more or less echoes the Evening Standard. A Scottish paper suggests this isn't about private strong-arming so much as the “Buy America” campaign. And the Daily Telegraph says that the pressure came from Congresspeople — some of whom unquestionably are this stupid — and not from the White House. And, indeed, if you look at what the FT and ES actually say, they don't finger the Bush administration as such — just give the strong impression the Administration is the source of the pressure from the context, which is about Bush's visit.
But even if the pressure came from Bush's allies in Congress, instead of directly from the administration, this isn't good.
No George McGovern (washingtonpost.com). Robert Kagan can read, and he's no prisoner of anyone's dogma but his own. So he doesn't accept the Republican spin points about Howard Dean.
If, like me, you pay some attention to British politics you will probably find this spoof memo about Bush's state visit to the UK to be pretty funny: Telegraph | Opinion | Palace-speak for the Bush men
If the name “John Prescott” means nothing to you, it's still funny, but you'll probably miss some of the best jokes.
US firms told 'take UK jobs home': Turns out that the Bush folks do have a plan to increase US employment, one whose stupidity boggles the mind: blackmail defense contractors into closing plants in allied countries and repatriating the jobs. The idiocy of this thuggish idea exceeds even that of the incredibly stupid and obviously illegal steel tariff.
Ok, the Evening Standard is not the New York Times, but it is London's major evening paper, and it's hard to believe they would get this wrong:
US-based multinationals have been told they will receive compensation from American trade authorities if they cancel contracts in Britain and take jobs home, according to CBI director-general Digby Jones.
…
Speaking at the CBI's annual conference in Birmingham, Jones said: 'Three chief executives of American companies investing in Britain have told me to my face that they have been told to close down, bring their stuff home and make it in the US.'
He said the companies were major employers in defence or manufacturing.
Jones continued: 'Whether flouting international law with their steel tariffs or telling their companies to come home, this bullying affects Britain and British jobs.
(Spotted by the sideshow.)
Well, that ought to make for fun discussions with Tony Blair, don't you think? And for a good show at the next Question Time…
US babies get global brand names. As more and more ordinary words become national and international brands, some overlap between personal name space and TM-space was inevitable. But naming kids “ESPN”? I think naming a child after a brand is a pretty awful thing to do — but that doesn't make it illegal.
I haven’t researched it, but it seems to me that were any owner of even a coined famous mark (the very, very strongest kind) to complain about a child bearing their trademarked name, the company would lose. Mere naming of a child is a non-commercial use of a word, and federal trademark law, at least, requires commercial use of a term for both traditional infringement and for federal dilution claims. Furthermore, the naming is neither dilution nor tarnishment (although it could lead to either in the long run).
The more interesting legal issues arise if the kid ever tries to use his name in commerce. Even people named McDonalds can’t open eponymous burger joints today. So the kid might have more constraints on the use of his name than the rest of us.
Drawing the line isn't easy, since dilution law is fairly hair-trigger, and doesn't require even an imminent likelihood of confusion, must less evidence of actual confusion. Nor does it require that the two sets of goods be in competition — just that the new user be thought to “blur” the uniqueness of the prior user's famous mark.
Now suppose the kid with the funny name grows up and becomes a major recording artist, uses his own name, and sings songs that the famous, coined, mark holder thinks blur or tarnish the brand…. The mark holder would certainly have an arguable case that the former kid should call his act something else.
I think the former kid should win, but it’s a comment on the state of the law that this isn’t as obvious a result as it might be, especially if the dilution claim was based on one of the more aggressive state's laws.
Jotwell Blenderlaw