Please don’t lump trademarks with the rest. Makers have stamped their goods with their mark since ancient times, both as advertising and to signify quality products (and not knockoffs). Swords were especially commonly marked with the smith’s trademark.
It was illegal to sell bread in ancient Rome without a trademark, for example. The punishments for doing so were harsh, as they wanted to be able to track down the baker if someone sold tainted bread.
In modern days, they’re useful for customers to know what company they’re buying from.
Trademarks have valid uses but they, too, are perverted. Think about luxury goods. The purpose of the brand name is simply to signal that the owner is able to afford the brand. These brands have nothing to do with consumer protection.
I consider them parasitic. Whatever utility someone gets from signalling with an exclusive brand is provided by society, not the company.
Please don’t lump trademarks with the rest. Makers have stamped their goods with their mark since ancient times, both as advertising and to signify quality products (and not knockoffs). Swords were especially commonly marked with the smith’s trademark.
It was illegal to sell bread in ancient Rome without a trademark, for example. The punishments for doing so were harsh, as they wanted to be able to track down the baker if someone sold tainted bread.
In modern days, they’re useful for customers to know what company they’re buying from.
Trademarks have valid uses but they, too, are perverted. Think about luxury goods. The purpose of the brand name is simply to signal that the owner is able to afford the brand. These brands have nothing to do with consumer protection.
I consider them parasitic. Whatever utility someone gets from signalling with an exclusive brand is provided by society, not the company.