Re:Damn Straight! (Score 1)

This issue is almost as simple as people make it seem; It boils down to this:

• This type of law exists in almost every country but the US and Canada.
• Search engines make money off of selling rights to trademarked and registered trademarks (when used as "keywords") and the trademark owners get no license fees from this
• All international search engines already comply with these laws (in countries that have them)
• All major search engines already resolve IP-to-geography information, so complying with only Utah results is a trivial issue
• Mazda has no right to use the Pontiac trademarks without prior consent from Pontiac (or the company that runs Pontiac) in print; why should it be different on the web?

The law is not flawed. It does have some issues because it is a state law trying to regulate on the internet, but that will always be the case (at least for a while) with law (in any jurisdiction) and the internet.

The law was, in fact, an update of paper-and-pen trademark registration laws (which are in every state) that have been around for hundreds of years. The new law inherits all of the problems built into the old laws (i.e.:

• What happens if a company registers a trademark legitimately owned by another company?
• How does a 3rd party company (in this example, a search engine) comply with this system?
• How does a trademark owner specify who is allowed to use their term and who is not?

The Interstate Commerce Act does not apply if the regulation is only done within the jurisdiction of the state in question (Utah). If a Utah resident is in Utah and visits a search engine, the search engine is required to comply with the law. If it turns out that Utah is trying to govern search results for the entire country (or the world), there will be ICA issues. AFAIK, that is not what the law dictates or allows. Someone who can actually read legalease would be helpful here.

The First Amendment does not grant the same freedoms of speech to commercial organizations as it does to individuals. Search results containing trademarked keywords are very likely to be considered commercial speech (like all corporate advertising). I don't see First Amendment arguments holding up in court.

There is going to be a service set up by the state to allow trademark owners to "license" the use of their keywords to other companies. If a company doesn't receive permission from a trademark owner to use that trademark, they are diluting the brand and infringing on the value of the trademark. They are effectively benefiting from another company's capital spent to build up a trademark and paying a 3rd party (who does not then compensate the trademark owner).

Google, MSN, and Yahoo! are already fighting it. They have hired one of the best lobbyists in Utah and one of the best law firms too. They aren't worried so much about losing Utah-based, but they are very worried about other states trying to enact similar laws (and the Federal government, too).

Any company with a strong brand (especially "Big Businesses") will be in favor of this legislation. If this law made it on the national stage, the search engines will have no pull in comparison with the "Big Business" conglomerates who want to protect the brands they pump so much capital into.

I know all of the major pharmaceutical companies are just dying to protect their drug names online. How many times have you seen ads online containing the word "Viagra"paid for by a company other than Pfizer? The Canadian drug retailers and the "herbal substitutes" don't pay Pfizer to use their registered trademarks, but they profit from the use of the keyword.

Personally, I don't think there is a legal case against the law. There might be a case against the system that is built to enable the law, but we will have to see when that system is in place.