[PLUG] Conclusion to PDXLUG argument

[Felix Lee]

Cliff Wells <clifford.wells at comcast.net>:
> I pointed out the inconsistency of the claims of those who said
> that they were concerned that PDXLUG was damaging PLUG in some
> ill-defined fashion while they themselves were demonstrably damaging it
> themselves (via the announcements of people abandoning the list).

they're different types of damage.  anyone can care about one
type but not another without being particularly inconsistent.
though I think most of the people who do care dropped out early
from the flame war.  the bulk of it was you and Jeme, and the
announced unsubscriptions happened after you two were going at it
for a while.

Jeme is pretty predictable in his allegiance to cyber-anarchy.
I'm not sure PLUG as a whole is committed to cyber-anarchy, but
if the people who control the infrastructure are, then the group
will tend to self-select for people who value it or are willing
to tolerate it.  to cyber-anarchists, unsubscriptions are not
damage, they're expected, and the people who leave are those who
aren't compatible with cyber-anarchy ideals, which is fine.

"unfair competition" is not ill-defined damage.  the law's been
around since the 60s.  in trademark infringement, intent is
irrelevant.  what matters is whether people may be confused or
not.

I'm not advocating legal action, by the way.  this is just to
point out that there's precedent for a particular method for
resolving this type of dispute, and if a law's been around for a
while, it's possible that people generally feel the principles
behind it are sensible.  domain registrars have similar
resolution methods.

the issue is not the name "PDXLUG", it's the use of the phrase
"Portland Linux User Group", which I would naturally abbreviate
as "PLUG", which seems like reasonable grounds for confusion, and
there may be concrete evidence of specific cases of confusion.

for your example about the "The Beaverton Honda Dealers", I think
Wil was focusing on the wrong thing, which was something like
whether the phrase seems too generic for a trademark to be valid.
it doesn't matter how the phrase seems.  what matters is how it's
being used.  if there were a long-established company called
that, with an ad campaign and brand recognition and such, I think
a judge would rule in favor of them, since that's the intent of
the unfair competition law.

one example that I thought of: the phrase "Girl Scouts" is pretty
generic, but it's commonly understood to refer to one particular
entity, and I suspect someone who tries to sell their own brand
of "Girl Scout Cookies" would lose a lawsuit.  I'd have to go
digging into case law to be sure, and I'm not going to go do
that.  I'm also unclear how the UCC affects any of this.  my
curiosity about intellectual property laws happened a few years
before UCC took effect, and I haven't paid much attention since
then.

I gather PDXLUG has been phasing out the use of the phrase
"Portland Linux User Group", but it looks like it's been
happening in a slow and inconsistent manner, perhaps because the
PDXLUG people don't feel it's an important issue.

it's not an important issue to me either, but I can see why
people would care, and I think it's generally a good idea to
listen to that, because volunteer work is often done by people
who feel passionate about what they do.  it's natural for people
to become emotionally attached to their pet projects.  telling
them they shouldn't care so much is usually counter-productive.

I didn't sort through the profit/nonprofit thing, but it doesn't
particularly bother me if people claim PLUG as a merit badge.
saying "I helped make that happen" is normal pride.  everyone has
their own trophies, and most people understand the caveats and
limitations of that.

the personality conflicts, I generally have no idea about,
because I don't know any of the people involved, and that stuff
usually isn't discussed openly.

Jeme is an easy case.  you have an issue with the way he applied
the description "totalitarian regime" to PDXLUG.  Jeme is just
nutty about that.  this is not usually a problem.  any large,
diverse group of people will have some that are predictably nutty
about something or other, and people learn to deal with it.

his worldview is logically consistent to him, but the statements
he make sound absurd to many other people, because he uses words
in abnormal ways, focusing on the semantic associations that are
meaningful to him and ignoring the ones meaningful to others.  he
ends up expending a lot of energy trying to explain his
unconventional worldview over and over again, which doesn't
really improve his credibility with anyone who doesn't already
understand his worldview.

and he's going to keep doing that, because cyber-anarchists do
not have any other method for resolving disagreements.  to him,
restricting free expression is an ultimate evil, and I'm guessing
he will fight for your right to flame endlessly.  your attempt to
annoy him enough to make him go away is never going to work.

I'm sure I'm leaving things out, but that's what I remember from
the flame war.  anything else you'd like a response to?

oh, in case it isn't clear, I don't speak for anyone but me.
--