Yes, fraud & lies, particularly those resulting in physical or material harm should absolutely be grounds for restitution.
IP should exist to whatever degree that clear identification via branding or trademarks is necessary to keep people honest.
Organizations like "Komen for the Cure" who go around suing other charitable orgs for using different colored ribbons & "for the cure" in their own slogans is kind of ridiculous though.
The person donating or purchasing the item should be the one to seek restitution because producers charging different prices are not stealing anything from their competition, they are only harming or misleading customers. No producer is guarateed future sales so nothing has been stolen when a copycat enters the market. If the customer believed they were buying the genuine item maybe the restitution should be that the fraudulent company be required to purchase the real item from the original company.
Do you have a property right to the truth? In what way does my selling you a belt with the Gucci logo manufactured by myself rather than by Gucci violate your rights?
I realize if we eliminate fraud laws then any transaction beyond trifles will likely involve explicit contracts and many would prefer to have law rather than contractual arrangements for every little thing (although we currently seem to have contracts for every little thing and most people agree without reading them)
A trade is basically a contract with a receipt as proof & we generally treat them as refundable in the short term based on the idea that the buyer's expectations must be met. I suspect we will eventually get some sort of 2 party escrow system for 2nd layer retail payments that will eliminate most fraud problems before the txns are even complete.
IMO the contracts today that no one reads are more a product of a fiat legal system where laws are designed to confuse & tax & complicate transactions rather than facilitate trade & clarify things.
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
