20 Jun 2012, 7:24 am
20 Jun 2012, 8:00 am
theimperiousdork wrote:
threatening legal action unless the latter pulls out the product on the basis of "copyright infringement." That, in my book, is an excellent ruse for harassment of their critics
You mis-attribute to malice that which is already explained by a corporation's obligation to protect and control the use of its own registered marks or symbols.Any corporation - and especially, as I understand it, in the USA - would have been obliged to follow the exact same path or run the risk of weakening its trademark and by ignoring any one case, it would further risk losing the right to fight any future trademark infringements.
In other words - unless a corporation actively defends its trademarks/symbols, it runs the risk of losing any right to use them at all.
I believe ahogday has already provided links explaining this - possibly not in this thread, but this issue surfaces time and again yet it has nothing to do with Autism Speaks harassing anyone. It's merely standard corporate practice.
Quote:
As for the Wrong Planet being funded by the fraudsters at Autism Speaks, it is a contradiction and violation of Alexander Plank's very principle -- he was a staunch critic, until he was bought out. That alienated many of those who believed in him, and sadly, your group named Autism Speaks hasn't gained any respect from the online autistic community at large.
Have you tried simply asking Alex about this? Seriously, I mean it: it's not unreasonable to be curious about WP's funding.
He's quite approachable; I'm sure he'd be happy to provide general answers to your questions but I wouldn't expect precise sums, bank statements and profit/loss accounts etc - that's probably going too far.
20 Jun 2012, 8:10 am
20 Jun 2012, 8:25 am
Cornflake wrote:
theimperiousdork wrote:
threatening legal action unless the latter pulls out the product on the basis of "copyright infringement." That, in my book, is an excellent ruse for harassment of their critics
You mis-attribute to malice that which is already explained by a corporation's obligation to protect and control the use of its own registered marks or symbols.Any corporation - and especially, as I understand it, in the USA - would have been obliged to follow the exact same path or run the risk of weakening its trademark and by ignoring any one case, it would further risk losing the right to fight any future trademark infringements.
In other words - unless a corporation actively defends its trademarks/symbols, it runs the risk of losing any right to use them at all.
I believe ahogday has already provided links explaining this - possibly not in this thread, but this issue surfaces time and again yet it has nothing to do with Autism Speaks harassing anyone. It's merely standard corporate practice.
I disagree, Cornflake. Many brand names nowadays are registered trademarks (you know, those with the ® character), and yet I haven't heard of any major corporation threatening anyone who uses their brand name in protest with a slap of a litigation threat. Autism Speaks, as far as many of us know, and based on their logo as well, has the standard unregistered trademark character (™) on their name. Meaning, it doesn't afford a brand name the protection registered trademarks enjoy.
I know it is an old issue, but I am citing an example how Autism Speaks can go to great lengths to harass their critics. The shirt was meant for a protest; if the owner of the shirts or the middleman used Autism Speaks's name to found a group of the same name and claim it as their own, I could let the actions of Autism Speaks slide. But not in this case.
If someone can provide an example where, for example, Microsoft® suing someone over a "Microsoft sucks!" protest shirt, then that would be helpful. (Well, not exactly that, but anything of a similar light.) But hearing of protests by other autistic activists that had Autism Speaks's name on it, I haven't heard the latter slapping an injunction or something like that at the protesters.
That move would raise a conclusion that Autism Speaks takes advantage of "standard corporate practice" and use it to silence those who stand up to them.
Cornflake wrote:
Quote:
As for the Wrong Planet being funded by the fraudsters at Autism Speaks, it is a contradiction and violation of Alexander Plank's very principle -- he was a staunch critic, until he was bought out. That alienated many of those who believed in him, and sadly, your group named Autism Speaks hasn't gained any respect from the online autistic community at large.
Have you tried simply asking Alex about this? Seriously, I mean it: it's not unreasonable to be curious about WP's funding.He's quite approachable; I'm sure he'd be happy to provide general answers to your questions but I wouldn't expect precise sums, bank statements and profit/loss accounts etc - that's probably going too far.
Actually, the moment I've heard that Autism Speaks starts funding Wrong Planet, I contacted Plank immediately through e-mail; and in all of my e-mails, I received no response. Does that sound approachable to you?
I didn't ask the financial statement of Wrong Planet; I questioned his move. I was expecting an explanation, to no avail. Did anyone of you know of any reason why he joined forces with the very people he criticises? In my book, it's plain and simple hypocrisy. Plus, his posts of his cars -- not to mention changing them every time -- and, therefore, his wealth, raises too many questions.
I'm sure you'll be with me at this time when I say that it is an insult to receive zero responses after multiple attempts to contact someone. Also, silence doesn't mean "yes"; it will continue to raise a lot of questions, and as things related to the person in question continue to surface, those things get into the fray.
Last edited by theimperiousdork on 20 Jun 2012, 8:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
20 Jun 2012, 8:28 am
20 Jun 2012, 8:50 am
Delphiki
Veteran
Joined: 14 Apr 2012
Age: 183
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,415
Location: My own version of reality
20 Jun 2012, 8:54 am
20 Jun 2012, 8:55 am
theimperiousdork wrote:
If someone can provide an example where, for example, Microsoft® suing someone over a "Microsoft sucks!" protest shirt, then that would be helpful.
Gladly, and it wasn't even "sucks": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_vs._MikeRoweSoftSome of the legal ramifications are outlined in this article but they're necessarily brief. Ahogday knows much more about the USA corporate protection aspects than I do and I'm sure he'll be able to explain it better than I can.
Quote:
That move would raise a conclusion that Autism Speaks takes advantage of "standard corporate practice" and use it to silence those who stand up to them.
Any corporation must do this, but it's not "taking advantage" for nefarious, oppressive reasons. It would simply be making use of the rights available to it as a registered corporation with a market presence to protect. Standard corporate practice.Quote:
Actually, the moment I've heard that Autism Speaks starts funding Wrong Planet, I contacted Plank immediately through e-mail; and in all of my e-mails, I received no response. Does that sound approachable to you?
I only know he didn't reply because you're telling me, but having not seen your EMail I can't say if that was a reasonable action to take. To be blunt, I'd have to say that if it was phrased even remotely like some of the more extreme things you've said here then I can hardly blame him for not responding.Quote:
I didn't ask the financial statement of Wrong Planet; I questioned his move. I was expecting an explanation, to no avail. Did anyone of you know of any reason why he joined forces with the very people he criticises? In my book, it's plain and simple hypocrisy.
I am not aware of Alex criticising Autism Speaks. Maybe that was before my WP time and in any case, maybe he just discovered that it wasn't quite the devil incarnate as is popularly claimed. I don't know.Quote:
Plus, his posts of his cars -- not to mention changing them every time -- raises too many questions.
I think that's somewhat unjustified, considering you (I'm assuming) know nothing about his family situation, its financial situation or Alex's own private finances.Quote:
Also, silence doesn't mean "yes"; it will continue to raise a lot of questions, and as things related to the person in question continue to surface, those things get into the fray.
The right to remain silent is pretty fundamental, as you surely know, and even in a lofty legal setting it still implies nothing whatever except... silence.
I know he doesn't exactly have a good record when it comes to rapid responses to EMails or PMs; then again, neither do I - as ahogday knows only too well...
20 Jun 2012, 8:57 am
20 Jun 2012, 9:04 am
theimperiousdork wrote:
That is one of the many questions Plank must answer, if he would want to appease his user base upset over his sell-out to Autism Speaks.
Must answer? Good lord... To quote Monty Python: "No-one expects the Spanish Inquisition!".
Again, I think you're being somewhat unfair and certainly prejudicial by using "sell-out" before you've even asked the question, let alone received a reply to it.
20 Jun 2012, 9:07 am
20 Jun 2012, 9:14 am
Cornflake wrote:
theimperiousdork wrote:
That is one of the many questions Plank must answer, if he would want to appease his user base upset over his sell-out to Autism Speaks.
Must answer? Good lord... To quote Monty Python: "No-one expects the Spanish Inquisition!". Again, I think you're being somewhat unfair and certainly prejudicial by using "sell-out" before you've even asked the question, let alone received a reply to it.
theimperiousdork can you answer this question first
you have failed your obligation to back up your paranoid conspiracy theory with real fact,you see alex did not start a thread claiming he does not like autism speaks.you on the other hand have going on and on for multiple pages about how alex has sold the country of autism to the empire of autism speaks.
you started the direction of the thread so i ask WHO has the real obligation to explain there view point
20 Jun 2012, 9:44 am
Personally, Cornflake and Delphiki, your examples really brought a smile to my face. "MikeRoweSoft" and "The South Butt"? Really kicks butts. We all need that. Hahaha! 
Back to topic, though, those names were meant to poke fun at the companies they parody; but in The South Butt's case, as Delphiki might have already mentioned, it was a clothing company, similar to the that of the very company it parodied, which is the opposite direction: The North Face. It would make sense that The North Face litigates Winkelmann over the brand name, because of the fact that it sold similar products, and that The South Butt was meant to be a money-making enterprise, thus justifying their case. In MikeRoweSoft's case, though Rowe's purpose of registering the domain was to promote his web-design business, which is similar to the agenda of The South Butt, it was partly a blunder on the part of Microsoft due to their exaggerated reaction.
But in the case of Autism Speaks vs Zazzle vs AspieWeb, the main purpose of the shirts was protest. And in Autism Speaks's case, though they are a registered corporation, their name is to my knowledge an unregistered trademark. I do not think they are given the privilege to litigate anyone for any reason over the use of their name, especially if no one profits from said tactic.
As for Plank, it was way back before you and I, and I would guest most of the participants of this discussion, had actually been members of this community. These are the articles that I am aware of where Plank outspokenly berates Autism Speaks. They date sometime between 2008 and 2009:
- Wrong Planet Acquires Autism Speaks - this was an April Fools' joke, but significant nonetheless
- Autism Speaks Intimidates yet another Autistic Blogger - Chilling Effects
- What? Aren't Most Autistics High Functioning?
- Ten Myths about Autism - Debunked
- Michael John Carley and Autism Speaks: The Collaboration Thickens
As for his supposed wealth, I don't really know about it. But, like I mentioned, it still raises a lot of questions. Plank acquiring multiple automobiles in the heat of the his connivance with Autism Speaks -- that, coupled with his silence and outright refusal to respond to questions, would definitely draw a lot of flak from those disillusioned.
As for vermontsavant, I challenge Plank to explain his connivance with Autism Speaks. Like I said to Cornflake, the articles above were written before anyone of us in this discussion became members of this community. Those were among his stances before he apparently (and this time, I would make that clear, to prevent any disputes on that) sold out to those con artists. In my interactions with other veterans of this forum (their names whom I am hesistant to divulge for their protection), I saw disillusionment, considering that Autism Speaks is not known in a good light among the autistic community, and Wrong Planet appeared to stand up for them.
I know that my colourful and creative depictions of Wrong Planet, Alex Plank, Autism Speaks, and company may seem to turn my opinion into what you call "paranoid conspiracy theory," but like I said, it is opinion, and I have a lot of questions Plank and the cons at Autism Speaks must answer.
I hope this long statement answers the questions of those who asked me. Thank you.
Update: I added links, just in case you missed them.
Last edited by theimperiousdork on 20 Jun 2012, 9:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
OliveOilMom
Veteran
Joined: 11 Nov 2011
Age: 62
Gender: Female
Posts: 11,447
Location: About 50 miles past the middle of nowhere
20 Jun 2012, 9:53 am
androbot2084 wrote:
As I have said the only reason that neurotuypicals do not smear poo is because it is not socially acceptable to do so. But neurotypicals love to cause environmental damage by dumping their oil in the gulf of Mexico. So in that regard they are worse than the autistic.
1, Everyone with an ASD and AS does not smear poo. I've never smeared poo nor wanted to. It has nothing to do with social acceptability it has to do with the smell and that, well, it's poop and I get no thrill out of smearing anything at all onto walls or floors or furniture. Never have.
I have played with play doh, on a table, and made things with it. Probably the same consistancy as poop. But I've never had the desire to touch poop. I've never even mentioned to my kids when they were little "Don't put your hands in the toilet (or your diaper, before they were potty trained) and mess with the poop" and they never did it. I'd imagine that smearing poop has more to do with sensory issues and liking the feel of smearing it and not being bothered by the smell of it, rather than social acceptability.
2. Whats that got to do with paranoia over autism speaks?
_________________
I'm giving it another shot. We will see.
My forum is still there and everyone is welcome to come join as well. There is a private women only subforum there if anyone is interested. Also, there is no CAPTCHA.
The link to the forum is http://www.rightplanet.proboards.com
20 Jun 2012, 10:00 am
20 Jun 2012, 10:52 am
theimperiousdork wrote:
Personally, Cornflake and Delphiki, your examples really brought a smile to my face. "MikeRoweSoft" and "The South Butt"? Really kicks butts. We all need that. Hahaha!
Back to topic, though, those names were meant to poke fun at the companies they parody; but in The South Butt's case, as Delphiki might have already mentioned, it was a clothing company, similar to the that of the very company it parodied, which is the opposite direction: The North Face. It would make sense that The North Face litigates Winkelmann over the brand name, because of the fact that it sold similar products, and that The South Butt was meant to be a money-making enterprise, thus justifying their case. In MikeRoweSoft's case, though Rowe's purpose of registering the domain was to promote his web-design business, which is similar to the agenda of The South Butt, it was partly a blunder on the part of Microsoft due to their exaggerated reaction.
But in the case of Autism Speaks vs Zazzle vs AspieWeb, the main purpose of the shirts was protest. And in Autism Speaks's case, though they are a registered corporation, their name is to my knowledge an unregistered trademark. I do not think they are given the privilege to litigate anyone for any reason over the use of their name, especially if no one profits from said tactic.
As for Plank, it was way back before you and I, and I would guest most of the participants of this discussion, had actually been members of this community. These are the articles that I am aware of where Plank outspokenly berates Autism Speaks. They date sometime between 2008 and 2009:
- Wrong Planet Acquires Autism Speaks - this was an April Fools' joke, but significant nonetheless
- Autism Speaks Intimidates yet another Autistic Blogger - Chilling Effects
- What? Aren't Most Autistics High Functioning?
- Ten Myths about Autism - Debunked
- Michael John Carley and Autism Speaks: The Collaboration Thickens
As for his supposed wealth, I don't really know about it. But, like I mentioned, it still raises a lot of questions. Plank acquiring multiple automobiles in the heat of the his connivance with Autism Speaks -- that, coupled with his silence and outright refusal to respond to questions, would definitely draw a lot of flak from those disillusioned.
As for vermontsavant, I challenge Plank to explain his connivance with Autism Speaks. Like I said to Cornflake, the articles above were written before anyone of us in this discussion became members of this community. Those were among his stances before he apparently (and this time, I would make that clear, to prevent any disputes on that) sold out to those con artists. In my interactions with other veterans of this forum (their names whom I am hesistant to divulge for their protection), I saw disillusionment, considering that Autism Speaks is not known in a good light among the autistic community, and Wrong Planet appeared to stand up for them.
I know that my colourful and creative depictions of Wrong Planet, Alex Plank, Autism Speaks, and company may seem to turn my opinion into what you call "paranoid conspiracy theory," but like I said, it is opinion, and I have a lot of questions Plank and the cons at Autism Speaks must answer.
I hope this long statement answers the questions of those who asked me. Thank you.
Update: I added links, just in case you missed them.
Have you ever considered a career in politics because you mastered the art of talking without saying anything.i give up with you
Back to topic, though, those names were meant to poke fun at the companies they parody; but in The South Butt's case, as Delphiki might have already mentioned, it was a clothing company, similar to the that of the very company it parodied, which is the opposite direction: The North Face. It would make sense that The North Face litigates Winkelmann over the brand name, because of the fact that it sold similar products, and that The South Butt was meant to be a money-making enterprise, thus justifying their case. In MikeRoweSoft's case, though Rowe's purpose of registering the domain was to promote his web-design business, which is similar to the agenda of The South Butt, it was partly a blunder on the part of Microsoft due to their exaggerated reaction.
But in the case of Autism Speaks vs Zazzle vs AspieWeb, the main purpose of the shirts was protest. And in Autism Speaks's case, though they are a registered corporation, their name is to my knowledge an unregistered trademark. I do not think they are given the privilege to litigate anyone for any reason over the use of their name, especially if no one profits from said tactic.
As for Plank, it was way back before you and I, and I would guest most of the participants of this discussion, had actually been members of this community. These are the articles that I am aware of where Plank outspokenly berates Autism Speaks. They date sometime between 2008 and 2009:
- Wrong Planet Acquires Autism Speaks - this was an April Fools' joke, but significant nonetheless
- Autism Speaks Intimidates yet another Autistic Blogger - Chilling Effects
- What? Aren't Most Autistics High Functioning?
- Ten Myths about Autism - Debunked
- Michael John Carley and Autism Speaks: The Collaboration Thickens
As for his supposed wealth, I don't really know about it. But, like I mentioned, it still raises a lot of questions. Plank acquiring multiple automobiles in the heat of the his connivance with Autism Speaks -- that, coupled with his silence and outright refusal to respond to questions, would definitely draw a lot of flak from those disillusioned.
As for vermontsavant, I challenge Plank to explain his connivance with Autism Speaks. Like I said to Cornflake, the articles above were written before anyone of us in this discussion became members of this community. Those were among his stances before he apparently (and this time, I would make that clear, to prevent any disputes on that) sold out to those con artists. In my interactions with other veterans of this forum (their names whom I am hesistant to divulge for their protection), I saw disillusionment, considering that Autism Speaks is not known in a good light among the autistic community, and Wrong Planet appeared to stand up for them.
I know that my colourful and creative depictions of Wrong Planet, Alex Plank, Autism Speaks, and company may seem to turn my opinion into what you call "paranoid conspiracy theory," but like I said, it is opinion, and I have a lot of questions Plank and the cons at Autism Speaks must answer.
I hope this long statement answers the questions of those who asked me. Thank you.
Update: I added links, just in case you missed them.
