[Non-US] News That Makes You laugh/cry/neither...

[hyzmarca]

McDonalds has lost the trademark to the Big Mac in the EU.

McDonalds provided the EUICO with sworn affidavits stating that they sold the big mac, sales figures, menus, website printouts from 18 different countries, and actual big mac boxes. The EUICO didn't believe any of it, and decided that there was no evidence that McDonalds sold a sandwich called the Big Mac anywhere in the EU.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... rmacs.html

[Thaluikhain]

Huh, that's...ok, I first was going to make a joke about how the Military Armaments Corporation can go with the "Big Mac" for their SMGs, only they've been out of business for ages and it's a bit obscure.

But...that's like something out of a pro-Brexiter propaganda story run by the Daily Mail. And it just has to occur now/ 5 days ago

[deaddmwalking]

I'm often surprised at Trademark lawyers. Like, they're the only ones who consistently claim that all people are REALLY DUMB.

A restaurant called 'Super Mac' doesn't seem like the kind of thing you would confuse with a sandwich at a different restaurant called a 'Big Mac'.

For fun, here's Samuel L Jackson in Coming to America eating at McDowells which is what I think of when someone is trying to use confusion to increase business.

[maglag]

McDonalds has lost the trademark to the Big Mac in the EU.

McDonalds provided the EUICO with sworn affidavits stating that they sold the big mac, sales figures, menus, website printouts from 18 different countries, and actual big mac boxes. The EUICO didn't believe any of it, and decided that there was no evidence that McDonalds sold a sandwich called the Big Mac anywhere in the EU.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... rmacs.html

Je ne suis pas une Big Mac.

I would say it's pretty obvious they believed, but McDonalds were being massive dicks to some small burger company and so the EUICO basically showed McDonalds the middle finger for their attempt to play so dirty with the competition.

[EightWave]

Their opinion says they believe McDonald's (probably) sells Big Macs but didn't meet the burden of proof in court. Kind of like how I can believe you're over 18, but can't sell you cigarettes if you don't have your ID.

The bullshit part is that they're claiming sales figures aren't sufficient evidence. Not that the sales aren't high enough or widespread enough ("Yes, you sold Big Macs, but you sold eight of them in the entire EU in the last five years") just "you might have fabricated them, and since there's no third-party confirmation of your sales figures we're choosing to ignore them".

Assuming the evidence presented were actual shareholder reports and advertising contracts with major media companies and not a printout of the McDonald's homepage with "WE SEL LOTS BIB MAK" written on it in crayon, it seems like they've set an impossible level of evidence to protect any trademark.

[Josh_Kablack]

I am not a lawyer, but my reading of that article says that McDonalds should have ditched the sales figures and just shown the intro clip from Pulp Fiction Linky instead -- since that's evidence not internally produced by McDonalds.

[Kaelik]

In have not been paying attention to this at all, but if the Court literally ruled that McDonald's didn't provide enough evidence that they sell BigMacs, then that is very very very very bad evaluation of evidence.

A judge would be within his right to take the existence of Big Macs sold by McDonalds as judicial notice.

[deaddmwalking]

In have not been paying attention to this at all, but if the Court literally ruled that McDonald's didn't provide enough evidence that they sell BigMacs, then that is very very very very bad evaluation of evidence.

A judge would be within his right to take the existence of Big Macs sold by McDonalds as judicial notice.

It might be fairer to say that the court asked for a specific type of evidence, McDonald's provided a different type of evidence, and the court decided to smack them around for failing to play by the rules. Keep in mind that McDonald's brought the suit against a much smaller restaurant and has been forcing them to jump through legal hurdles time and again, so this could be a little bit of 'your own medicine'. Especially since McDonald's has apparently been filing for Trademarks on SuperMac menu items that McDonald's doesn't sell. Not sure if that's true, but here's a source that makes that assertion.

[Iduno]

McDonalds has lost the trademark to the Big Mac in the EU.

McDonalds provided the EUICO with sworn affidavits stating that they sold the big mac, sales figures, menus, website printouts from 18 different countries, and actual big mac boxes. The EUICO didn't believe any of it, and decided that there was no evidence that McDonalds sold a sandwich called the Big Mac anywhere in the EU.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... rmacs.html

Edit: spoilered large image.

[erik]

Everything about that image is perfect. Green shorts on the little Irish company “little Mac” vs the big guy in red.

[EightWave]

It might be fairer to say that the court asked for a specific type of evidence, McDonald's provided a different type of evidence, and the court decided to smack them around for failing to play by the rules.

Reading the article again, it does seem fair to say that McDonald's really didn't do a good job.

The ruling expressly says affidavits from the parties are “generally given less weight than independent evidence” and “all of the remaining evidence”—the websites, brochures, and sandwich packaging samples—“originates from [McDonald’s] itself.”
...
So what did they want? The ruling says that while the brochures and websites were nice, they often didn’t say where or how you could buy a Big Mac. McDonald’s didn’t submit evidence of web traffic, or proof that the brochures “led to any potential or actual purchases,” or that the Big Macs that went in the packaging “were actually offered for sale or sold.”
...
The EUIPO actually responds to my “you can’t be serious” argument, writing a “declaration by the applicant concluding that evidence of use [of the trademark] submitted is sufficient … does not …have any effect on the Office’s findings.” In other words, it doesn’t even matter if everyone knows that McDonald’s sells burgers called Big Macs: There are ways to prove it, and McDonald’s didn’t bother.

They might actually have just printed websites and turned in three signed affidavits saying "We sell lots of Big Macs, give trademark". It's still bullshit that they went "Well, sure, you say you have thousands of restaurants and sell millions of Big Macs, but how can we trust you to be honest about this easily verifiable fact in a legal document?"

[LargePrime]

If you call a country where black people weren't allowed to vote a democracy, then, yes, the USA are the oldest continuous democracy.

There's only one older fucking country on the whole fucking planet. Name any quality that the United Kingdom did not have in 1785 and the United States is the oldest country to have that quality.
-Username17

Dear Frank. Check your white history

https://www.history.com/news/what-is-th ... -democracy

[Omegonthesane]

If you call a country where black people weren't allowed to vote a democracy, then, yes, the USA are the oldest continuous democracy.

There's only one older fucking country on the whole fucking planet. Name any quality that the United Kingdom did not have in 1785 and the United States is the oldest country to have that quality.
-Username17

Dear Frank. Check your white history

https://www.history.com/news/what-is-th ... -democracy

This appears to be a non-sequitur given that Frank was only talking about countries that still exist in 2018 (well 2019 now) and haven't had a regime change on the scale of the US revolution since 1785. Regardless of whether another country lasted longer than 250odd years before the ones acknowledged by coloniser scum.

[LargePrime]

There's only one older fucking country on the whole fucking planet. Name any quality that the United Kingdom did not have in 1785 and the United States is the oldest country to have that quality.
-Username17

Dear Frank. Check your white history

https://www.history.com/news/what-is-th ... -democracy

This appears to be a non-sequitur given that Frank was only talking about countries that still exist in 2018 (well 2019 now) and haven't had a regime change on the scale of the US revolution since 1785. Regardless of whether another country lasted longer than 250odd years before the ones acknowledged by coloniser scum.

Does Frank get to define terms?
Is it a democracy if your slaves cannot vote?
What if you say they can vote, but they really can't?
Does universal suffrage matter to 'democracy'?
The first nations still exist... I don't think they have ever stopped existing.
Why is Iceland disqualified? The Faroe Islands? The Isle of Man? Switzerland? New Zealand?
If the US Apartied state can be counted since 1776, why can't constitutional monarchies like Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain and Belgium?

[angelfromanotherpin]

Why is Iceland disqualified? The Faroe Islands? The Isle of Man? Switzerland? New Zealand?
If the US Apartied state can be counted since 1776, why can't constitutional monarchies like Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain and Belgium?

Math, chiefly.

The Republic of Iceland was constituted in 1944. The Faroe Islands achieved self-governance in 1948. It's hard to get an exact date with Man because they got their self-governance piecemeal over the course of decades, but they didn't fully control their own finances or police until 1976. Switzerland as a country occurs in 1848. The earliest you can reasonably say New Zealand became independent was 1856. The current country of Sweden only dates back to 1905 when their united kingdom with Norway separated. Norway got conquered in the interim, and their current country only goes back to 1945. The constitutional monarchy period of Denmark begins in 1849. The charter for the Kingdom of the Netherlands was adopted in 1954. The current democracy of Spain is from 1978 and younger than I am. Belgium only got independent in 1830.

[deaddmwalking]

The article itself makes the case for the US. If you have a local representative body that has no power because you are ruled by a foreign state, that seems to be a problem.

Nobody alive in any country in 1AD is alive today. We all like to claim continuity with the past - Western European countries identify with the Roman Empire without having a meaningful connection today.

If you're talking ab oi ut oldest Democracies, you come to the United States for two reasons- it has a lot of stability relative to other government structures or because elements of it are not as representative as the ideals.

The United States hasn't run out of fingers on one hand to count which Republic we're on, but there have been changes regarding who gets to vote and how - direct election of senators for example.

So if you state that the US isn't the oldest democracy which is true with any number of asterisks (or can be considered true with adterisks), what's your point? It's not a gotcha.

[LargePrime]

You said math. Did you mean these countries didn't exist before these dates? or that they were not democracies before then?

Does slave owners owning slaves votes, to cast as they will count as democracy? How does your math work on this?

The Republic of Iceland was constituted in 1944.

And how did this change it's democracy? Or its long history of democratic tradition?

The Faroe Islands achieved self-governance in 1948.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faroe_Isl ... government
Are you saying that because the Faroe_Islands were part of the Danish empire they were not a democracy before separation? was Canada not before separation from England?

Again, it had a functioning democracy long before this, and continued to after this event, right?

It's hard to get an exact date with Man because they got their self-governance piecemeal over the course of decades, but they didn't fully control their own finances or police until 1976.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isle_of_Man#Government
So they have been owned or controlled by many, but where is that a criteria for a democracy? They have a democratic tradition going back over 1000 years.

Switzerland as a country occurs in 1848.

Again, where does being a 'country' matter to the definition of democracy? They have the same tradition and legal structure before and after becoming a country, right? and that same tradition goes back ~700 years

The earliest you can reasonably say New Zealand became independent was 1856.

Again, but that is a continuance of its democratic tradition.

The current country of Sweden only dates back to 1905 when their united kingdom with Norway separated.

Again, but that is a continuance of its democratic tradition. in this case the date is only reset because of the independence of Norway

Norway got conquered in the interim, and their current country only goes back to 1945.

Again, but that is a continuance of its democratic tradition.

The constitutional monarchy period of Denmark begins in 1849.

Again, but that is a continuance of its democratic tradition.

The charter for the Kingdom of the Netherlands was adopted in 1954.

Again, but that is a continuance of its democratic tradition.

The current democracy of Spain is from 1978 and younger than I am.

Again, but that is a continuance of its democratic tradition.

Belgium only got independent in 1830.

Again, but that is a continuance of its democratic tradition.

If the arbitrary criteria is governance, the US civil war caused a significant interruption to its governance. For many years after the war multiple governments claimed sovereignty over the US.

[angelfromanotherpin]

A 'democratic tradition' isn't a country. An unsuccessful rebellion isn't a change of government. Take a fucking PoliSci class and stop making category errors.

[LargePrime]

The article itself makes the case for the US. If you have a local representative body that has no power because you are ruled by a foreign state, that seems to be a problem.

Like Scotland? or Canada?
In few or none of these examples is your statement true, I think. I am often wrong though.
But if so, if a people have been democratic, for hundreds of years, and a invasion changes the expected behavior, and then it goes back to the peoples tradition, then how do we say they are not older democracies?

Nobody alive in any country in 1AD is alive today. We all like to claim continuity with the past - Western European countries identify with the Roman Empire without having a meaningful connection today.

I am unable to parse this.

If you're talking ab oi ut oldest Democracies, you come to the United States for two reasons- it has a lot of stability relative to other government structures or because elements of it are not as representative as the ideals.

The United States hasn't run out of fingers on one hand to count which Republic we're on, but there have been changes regarding who gets to vote and how - direct election of senators for example.

not to be pedantic, but is technical legal continuity more important than democratic tradition?

So if you state that the US isn't the oldest democracy which is true with any number of asterisks (or can be considered true with adterisks), what's your point? It's not a gotcha.

My point is, there are asterisks. imho, those asterisks belong in the body of the text, not as footnotes.
But let me turn this around. there are several 'countries' or people, or ethnic identities who had democracies way before the US, and they still exist. why are they discounted, and the horrible "democracy" of the USA considered ascendant?

[LargePrime]

A 'democratic tradition' isn't a country. An unsuccessful rebellion isn't a change of government. Take a fucking PoliSci class and stop making category errors.

for 20 years after the USA civil war it had two governments. why does that not trigger your category change?

[angelfromanotherpin]

Do you have any modes other than Socratic? It's annoying and juvenile.

Also, what in the world are you talking about with this 'two governments' thing? I have no earthly idea what you could mean.

[Mord]

This has to be the weirdest argument necro I've ever seen.

Deaddmwalking was talking about anti-democratic peculiarities in the American implementation of democratic government. He attributed these peculiarities to the age of the American government. In context it's obvious that "oldest democracy" is in reference to a specific government, which usually has a founding date that is knowable or at least estimable. Most governments have specific founding documents and you can point to the day those documents were enacted into law as the founding date, but the UK is super weird, so Frank's assertion that the UK is older may be valid.

You can argue about whether today's UK government is technically older than that of the USA, because you can legitimately disagree that today's UK existed prior to the Acts of Union in 1801 that united Great Britain and Ireland. On the other side, you could also argue that the current UK government actually started with the Acts of Union in 1707 that united England and Scotland, or the Glorious Revolution/Bill of Rights in 1688/1689, or the Union of the Crowns in 1603, or all the way back to the Magna Carta.

What you can't actually argue about is whether one "people" have had "democratic tradition" for longer than another, because "democratic tradition" is unquantifiable and so is a "people". Are today's Poles the same "people" as the Poles of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth? Are today's Poles more or less democratic than the Poles of the 18th century? No one fucking knows and no one can, because none of those things have a fixed definition! It's especially galling that you're playing these stupid semantic games when when your goal is just to deny the title of "oldest democracy" to the United States for some fucking reason. No one is saying that being the oldest one around is somehow an admirable or laudable thing. Deaddm originally brought it up as a negative for fuck's sake.

for 20 years after the USA civil war it had two governments. why does that not trigger your category change?

What the actual fuck are you talking about?

[Kaelik]

for 20 years after the USA civil war it had two governments. why does that not trigger your category change?

What the actual fuck are you talking about?

Hot Take: He's a southerner complaining that the lack of representation by the true south elections, because they cheated with all them black votes in reconstruction, rendered the south subject to a separate government than then north which was correctly voting for it's own candidates (without any cheating black votes).

[LargePrime]

for 20 years after the USA civil war it had two governments. why does that not trigger your category change?

What the actual fuck are you talking about?

Hot Take: He's a southerner complaining that the lack of representation by the true south elections, because they cheated with all them black votes in reconstruction, rendered the south subject to a separate government than then north which was correctly voting for it's own candidates (without any cheating black votes).

or literally anyone pointing out it can be argued

I'll just leave this here...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Marino#Government

[Kaelik]

Help he's so incoherent, did he confirm my take that he was actually complaining about how reconstruction was undemocratic!