SPAM, spam, and the Hormel trademark

[James Wilkinson]

Gene Heskett wrote:
> OT as is this, but IMO, the knickers in a knot that hormel seems to 
> have gotten themselves into, does rather sound like something they 
> really should get over.  They'll never be able to control the real 
> world useage of so common a word, one thats been part of the US 
> english vocabulary for something over 60 years IIRC.

You're right about the OT-ness.

But I don't think I can agree with what you say about Hormel.

The advent of the Internet has meant that individuals have come up
hard against trademark law for the first time. An individual with a
popular Web site (e.g. an anti-spam site) can attract a lot of
attention.

A lot of companies have had a hard time coming to terms with this.
(http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/12/08/warner_brothers_bullies_girl_over/)

Hormel did exactly what you suggested, many years ago, long before many
other companies that were *supposed* to "understand the Internet". (The
story above comes from the time when Time Warner was being acquired by
AOL).

Hormel understood that "spam" had acquired another, non-food-related,
technical meaning, and accepted this. At the time, the Internet was
just coming out of the mindset "don't get yourself sued, or they might
try to control the Internet and run all our fun".

That Hormel didn't try to cause problems was very much appreciated.

(Of course, one might like to see all companies that hope for a long
future taking such an enlightened position. But I won't mention
http://idrewthis.org/2004/nuke.html here, because that gets us into
US politics...)

James.

-- 
E-mail address: james | Really, *really* bad headlines:
@westexe.demon.co.uk  | Drunks Get Nine Months in Violin Case
                      | Iraqi Head Seeks Arms
                      | British Left Waffles on Falkland Islands