Utah Rethinking Anti-Keyword Advertising Law

Eric Goldman writes "Slashdot previously reported on Utah's recent law banning trademark-triggered keyword advertising. This week, a group of technology executives met with Utah legislators to discuss the law, and it looks like the legislature is rethinking its position. According to the Salt Lake Tribune, 'Legislative leaders are looking to tweak a troublesome trademark protection program rather than defend it in court, after an unprecedented meeting with Internet power brokers who would prefer the new registry be scrapped.'"

This came as a surprise. Really.

[unity100 (970058)]

I wasnt expecting that. The law they put out was just and up-to-standards on modern day technology. I cant see any reason why they should reconsider such an exemplary law.

Re:

[Miseph (979059)]

The Utah legislature doesn't want to break their streak. They haven't written a good law since 1886, and by God, they want to keep it that way!

Since 1886 !!! Hell yeah !!!

[unity100 (970058)]

This is a fantastic example of perseverance and persistent stability. All sane citizens not only in united states, but in any constituencies in any country in the world should give support to Utah for continuance of this excellent example. There are tears in my eyes.

Re:Utah is out of bounds

[Jonny do good (1002498)]

Trademark is actually covered under both state and federal laws.

Re:

[SpacePunk (17960)]

In this case it's an interstate issue, not an intrastate issue which makes it federal territory.

Re:

[boingo82 (932244)]

Parent may appear to be trolling, but as someone who lives here, in a city where it's illegal to sell pornography or sex toys, in a city where we celebrated New Year's on Dec 30 and Independence Day on July 3 last year (both days had the audacity to fall on Sunday), in a city where you can't buy liquour except at the state-owned store, in a city...I think you get the picture. Parent may be trolling, but he's also accurate.

It all starts to make sense....

[baine (600693)]

when you start to look closely at the keywords they were trying to control : Brigham Young, Mormon, LDS, Mitt Romney, green jello, 2002 Winter Olympics, oh my heck, etc...

I think....

[owlnation (858981)]

I think that "rethinking" is not a good word to use. The implication is that they are thinking again. Which further implies that they were thinking in the first place.

Figures

[Goldarn (922750)]

OhMyHeck, the Utah Legislature is listening to some rich business owners! That's certainly the first time that has happened!

Google hypocrisy

[Raenex (947668)]

I agree it's a bad law, and Google is one of the companies against it, but this little bit from the article is interesting:

All lawmakers want is for Google to protect other brands the way they shield their own, Eastman said. If a company tries to buy the trigger rights to the word Google, the following message pops up: "Due to trademark reasons, we do not allow advertisers to use 'Google' in their Google AdWords ads. This term may be trademarked either for a certain product or service category and may apply only in certain countries."

give them a little credit...

[Fogg (947911)]

Legislative leaders are looking to tweak a troublesome trademark protection program rather than defend it in court, after an unprecedented meeting with Internet power brokers who would prefer the new registry be scrapped.

Republicans did not rule out a repeal of the law. Nor did they dismiss the possibility that problems could be dealt with in an upcoming special session. But after Tuesday's meeting on Capitol Hill, lawmakers held out hope that a compromise could be reached.

The 'Internet power brokers' w