When Chao introduced himself to our Small Bets community I didn’t threaten to sue the poor guy.. That would be totally ridiculous, right? Instead, I gave him a warm greeting and pointed out we had the same name. He kindly adjusted his user handle and any potential conflict was amicably averted.
I couldn't stop reading the plural of your name as the word for disorder. A thousand "Chao(s)" would indeed be chaos. I think for me the answer is to be able to produce new and valuable intellectual property every day, and just keep it coming. Consistency with your creative capacity seems like the only real protection you could ever have to ensure no can steal your essential value, which is not what you have thought, but the way you think.
“Let a thousand Chaos reign” would be a better title, in my opinion. Reining in trademark wars with property-like taxes is what this essay is about. Dot That! :)
Dividing a pie between two unvested parties is a symmetric problem. It's a flawed comparison with property-like tax on IP for the reason that the property holder is *vested* but the interloper isn't, i.e., it is an asymmetric problem. Imagine your house that you have lived in for many years being assessed a valuation that you pay tax on every year, but then a raider comes along and pays double that—but just for one year—trashes the house beyond repair and then promptly skips town. Both you and the raider are worse off. Society is poorer because no one can afford to defend a property when it is openly raidable by anyone at any moment. No long-term investment in brand building. No Apple, all generics. No ads, too. A society without brands is colorless—no blooms.
"It is progressive and increases equality" is a claim that is falsifiable. Imagine 999 BitCo's carving out a niche around BigCo to eke out a living with their little niche brands. BigCo is mightily annoyed. So BigCo outbid its tiny competitors on all 999 trademarks—and now owns them all. 1,000 brands belong to BigCo, all 999 BitCo's dispossessed of their niche brands. Not progressive, and highly unequal.
Did I conflate BigCo acquisition of SmallCo with BigCo acquisition of just SmallCo's trademark? Thinking more, I think there's a salient difference. BigCo almost never acquires SmallCo just for its trademark (I can't think of an example, but maybe you can?). In any case, by and large, the value of the acquisition lies elsewhere... so not applicable?
Say BigCo wants to get rid of 999 pesky SmallCo (powered by tiny brands). In the past, one might consider buying them off. But in this new dystopian regime, one can simply bully them away—by simply paying off the government. Works much better than trying to pay mafia to take down their literal store brands!
having started maybe 8 of these pesky smallcos, I wouldn't opt for state protection. I've had my logos ripped off, my exact website copied word for word - did I even attempt legal protections? As an angel investor, are your portfolio companies' experiences any different?
And that's perhaps a difference in our approaches. It's easy to conjecture hypotheticals in a professorial manner - how often does that match reality?
Exactly right. This hypothetical scheme of taxing trademarks like property gives BigCo a monopoly on state protection (via “monopoly of violence”) by simply paying off the government in ways small companies can’t afford. It is Mafia 101. No equal protection of the law under such hypothetical scheme because in this dystopian world, little guys have no protection of the law. The law’s protection on trademarks is only for those with a big war chest. Little companies will never get a chance to develop new brands. The law protects the few—those who can afford to have brands. Monopoly on violence begets monopoly on trademarks via 💰
I couldn't stop reading the plural of your name as the word for disorder. A thousand "Chao(s)" would indeed be chaos. I think for me the answer is to be able to produce new and valuable intellectual property every day, and just keep it coming. Consistency with your creative capacity seems like the only real protection you could ever have to ensure no can steal your essential value, which is not what you have thought, but the way you think.
Haha, too punny? I like your philosophy, Rick - can't rest on our laurels
“Let a thousand Chaos reign” would be a better title, in my opinion. Reining in trademark wars with property-like taxes is what this essay is about. Dot That! :)
So insightful! I distinctly remember the Chao showdown too. Let Chaos bloom!
Thanks Michelle - I like the compression you made
Very glad to hear you and the other Chao resolved things without a lawsuit Chao :)
I love the comparison of IP with realestate, because IP does in a lot of ways benefit from the law in similar ways.
Dividing a pie between two unvested parties is a symmetric problem. It's a flawed comparison with property-like tax on IP for the reason that the property holder is *vested* but the interloper isn't, i.e., it is an asymmetric problem. Imagine your house that you have lived in for many years being assessed a valuation that you pay tax on every year, but then a raider comes along and pays double that—but just for one year—trashes the house beyond repair and then promptly skips town. Both you and the raider are worse off. Society is poorer because no one can afford to defend a property when it is openly raidable by anyone at any moment. No long-term investment in brand building. No Apple, all generics. No ads, too. A society without brands is colorless—no blooms.
"It is progressive and increases equality" is a claim that is falsifiable. Imagine 999 BitCo's carving out a niche around BigCo to eke out a living with their little niche brands. BigCo is mightily annoyed. So BigCo outbid its tiny competitors on all 999 trademarks—and now owns them all. 1,000 brands belong to BigCo, all 999 BitCo's dispossessed of their niche brands. Not progressive, and highly unequal.
The "It" refers to property taxation (in both IP and real sense) - I guess that wasn't clear?
I am also not clear what you're saying here... BigCos have been buying brands for years... nothing new? Maybe SmallCo will be better compensated?
... except this time around BitCo's won't get compensated. All the money goes to govt—they got raided. Brands for BigCo only. BitCo's do generics.
Did I conflate BigCo acquisition of SmallCo with BigCo acquisition of just SmallCo's trademark? Thinking more, I think there's a salient difference. BigCo almost never acquires SmallCo just for its trademark (I can't think of an example, but maybe you can?). In any case, by and large, the value of the acquisition lies elsewhere... so not applicable?
Say BigCo wants to get rid of 999 pesky SmallCo (powered by tiny brands). In the past, one might consider buying them off. But in this new dystopian regime, one can simply bully them away—by simply paying off the government. Works much better than trying to pay mafia to take down their literal store brands!
having started maybe 8 of these pesky smallcos, I wouldn't opt for state protection. I've had my logos ripped off, my exact website copied word for word - did I even attempt legal protections? As an angel investor, are your portfolio companies' experiences any different?
And that's perhaps a difference in our approaches. It's easy to conjecture hypotheticals in a professorial manner - how often does that match reality?
Exactly right. This hypothetical scheme of taxing trademarks like property gives BigCo a monopoly on state protection (via “monopoly of violence”) by simply paying off the government in ways small companies can’t afford. It is Mafia 101. No equal protection of the law under such hypothetical scheme because in this dystopian world, little guys have no protection of the law. The law’s protection on trademarks is only for those with a big war chest. Little companies will never get a chance to develop new brands. The law protects the few—those who can afford to have brands. Monopoly on violence begets monopoly on trademarks via 💰