Author Topic: Did you guys see Fords (or should I say ****s) latest bonehead move? (Read 637 times)

DiabloTX · « **Reply #15 on:** January 10, 2008, 12:07:12 PM »

Viking, I have no problem with Ford wanting to protect their trademarks. It's how they are going about it that's BS.

Treize69 · « **Reply #16 on:** January 10, 2008, 12:10:31 PM »

I can see them protecting their copyright, but they are going way beyond that. By trying to shut down clubs and shops just because they use the name of one of their cars? How do you think they get 90% of their advertizing for those cars? Its not from TV ads, its from word of mouth and people seeing them on the street. Heck, a large portion (if not the majority) of owners are return buyers, or 2nd and 3rd generation owners who grew up with them.

Now to try and shut down or take over these groups (many of which are either non-profit or operate at a loss) does nothing but anger their supporters (many of which stayed with them through long years of uninspired designs and lackluster performance) and cause a serious backlash with the public. Especially considering the bad shape Ford is in (and the "great relationship" with enthusiasts that they have been touting lately), all I can see is a bunch of idiots cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

john9001 · « **Reply #17 on:** January 10, 2008, 12:12:19 PM »

maybe someone should tell the F car company that the M name is the name of a horse.

Treize69 · « **Reply #18 on:** January 10, 2008, 12:13:56 PM »

I'm wondering why NAA (or the company that had their assets by then) didn't sue them in 1965. Its been stated repeatedly for decades that they named the car after the plane, not the horse.

DiabloTX · « **Reply #19 on:** January 10, 2008, 12:20:40 PM »

Probably NAA didn't renew the copyrights back then. Who knows.

Bodhi · « **Reply #20 on:** January 10, 2008, 12:22:53 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Viking
Ford has to do it due to silly US legislation. If they don't actively protect their trade marks they will lose them. Same thing happened to flight simulators, car video games, model kits etc. several years ago. This is also why there won't be any more US planes added to the IL2 plane set, after C1 was sued by Boeing.

I wasn't aware that C1 had actually sued Boeing. But... if the indicators are right, I believe Boeing is backing off the stance anyways. So is Northrop Grumman.

As for IL2, it is pretty in the graphics department, but definitely second rate in the FM department.

Dux · « **Reply #21 on:** January 10, 2008, 12:23:38 PM »

The state of Kentucky did the same thing a while back... hence the changes to royalty-free names like KFC and Run for the Roses.

Radio stations also refuse to play "Kentucky Woman" anymore, so it's not all bad.

Treize69 · « **Reply #22 on:** January 10, 2008, 12:35:38 PM »

I still want to get a time machine, and go back and eviscerate the idiot who thought of a lawsuit.

Its a long way back, and I'd have to make a lot of stops on the way back to the now, but it would be SO worth it.

Fulmar · « **Reply #23 on:** January 10, 2008, 12:39:00 PM »

Sounds like somebody over at the RIAA got hired at Ford.

FrodeMk3 · « **Reply #24 on:** January 10, 2008, 01:29:45 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Treize69
I can see them protecting their copyright, but they are going way beyond that. By trying to shut down clubs and shops just because they use the name of one of their cars? How do you think they get 90% of their advertizing for those cars? Its not from TV ads, its from word of mouth and people seeing them on the street. Heck, a large portion (if not the majority) of owners are return buyers, or 2nd and 3rd generation owners who grew up with them.

Now to try and shut down or take over these groups (many of which are either non-profit or operate at a loss) does nothing but anger their supporters (many of which stayed with them through long years of uninspired designs and lackluster performance) and cause a serious backlash with the public. Especially considering the bad shape Ford is in (and the "great relationship" with enthusiasts that they have been touting lately), all I can see is a bunch of idiots cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

You know, Treize, only in the U.S., has frivolous litigation reached the point of driving people/organizations' to the point of ridiculous action that we have arrived at today. It's not only cars; Think of the now-famous decision to allow victims' of gun crime, to sue firearms' manufacturers, and basically to make them held accountable for the actions' of others.

I can see your point in this. It's another example of how this country's going down the tubes.

gunnss · « **Reply #25 on:** January 11, 2008, 12:50:40 AM »

Sigh,
It will bounce, Union Pacific RR tried the same thing wit all the names and markings of their RR and all the ones the have bought up. The wanted licencing fees from modelers who put the names on models. The legal action spun in place for a few years until the courts horse laughed the "Borg" RR out of court.
Regards,
Kevin