Too late for what? Apparently 'practically everywhere' does not include Louisiana.

Ars is a business, and they were using the name IN THE COURSE OF THEIR BUSINESS, to mean something other than products offered by IMAX.

It is being diluted by being used as a generic reference to large-screen movies. There is nothing remotely related to IMAX with this thing. So if you say 'this thing is just like IMAX' and the thing is a piece of crap, you have just damaged IMAX's brand, for something they had absolutely nothing to do with.

Ars is not a 'regular person'. It is a business, ie commerce

If by 'them' you mean IMAX, yes it is much better for them. Why? Because when the product (which they have nothing to do with) turns out to be a piece of crap, short lived fad, failure, wharever, THEIR name is not associated with it.

Problem is, that only works to the benefit of the newcomer and the detriment of the trademark holder. 'Product X is as good as IMAX!' Hey, I've heard of IMAX, that is high-quality stuff. Customer buys product X and it is a piece of crap. Association is now IMAX must be crap. THAT is why holders of famous marks like IMAX do not want their marks used to generically describe a product, which is exactly what Ars is doing.

Does not matter. The Trademark Dilution Act "Entitles an owner of a famous mark that is distinctive to an injunction against another person who commences use of a mark of trade name, after it has become famous, in commerce in a manner that is likely to cause dilution by blurring or tarnishment, regardless of the presence or absence of actual or likely confusion, competition, or actual economic injury."

In other words, you can't use IMAX to generically mean large-format movie. This is because once you let that happen, it becomes incfreasingly difficult to protect the trademark, and that is where the confusion comes in.

Seriously? Do we actually have to list all the trademark complaints Apple has filed?

And don't forget the aspirin.

Apparently the submitter has never heard of the Streisand Effect. either. The Streisand Effect. is where one does not want publicity, but their efforts to suppress it increase the publicity. IMAX is not trying to hide from any publicity, they just don't want their name used in conjunction with some else's product. And preventing confusion about products is the whole point of trademarks.

No, I don't need proof that there are idiots and malicious people. I need proof that MOST Americans don't care about social consequences, which is what the claim was.

I'd like to see some proof for your claim that most Americans don't care about social consequences.

Fierce competition for fares, for one thing. That includes things like fights between drivers, picking people up on the wrong side of the street, dangerous driving so you get to the fare first, etc.

Not getting enough fares means less money, means less maintenance on cabs, etc. Not enough fares also means working too long hours. Yes, the long hours problem is solved by the medallion system, because the medallion system regulates how many hours a driver can work.

Other than 'they make laws I don't like', what evidence do you have that the politicians have been bought off?

The 'scarcity' is there for a reason - to prevent a glut. The conditions that existed when there was a glut of cabs was much worse than the conditions that exist now. Do a little research.

Again, you have not read up on the history of the medallions. Why don't you address the many problems that occurred because there were too many cabs? So the question becomes: which is worse, too many cabs, or too few cabs.

Your simplistic economic principle has as much meaning and validity in the real world as a physics problem that starts 'assume no friction in a perfect vacuum'.