"Prim Savers" has changed its name to "Prim Misers"

[Phil Deakins]

Yes, it was discussed at length in the old forum and again in the Concierge group. The only couple of people who sided with him were friends of his (in the old forum but weren't forum users). Everyone else told him that he was doing wrong.

[Phil Deakins]

You interest me, Void. What was dirty on my part? I'm not aware of anything that I've done that could be remotely considered as "dirty pool", unless you mean that starting a thread about it was dirty pool? If that's what you mean, I disagree.

You say that it's about "so much more". Apart from the guy using my long-established business name to compete in the same field of commerce, what more is there?

I've nothing to hide so please post the answer to these questions.

ETA: I already posted that for a while I controlled the top search results so that his place stayed below the fold. Whenever he made a ranking move upwards, I caused him to make a move back down again, by pushing other people's places up above him. I suppose that that could be considered dirty but it was nothing that I feel morally ashamed of - and it was fun :-) Only two people knew II was doing it so I don't think you meant that.

[Void Singer]

never anything illegal, nor against the rules of the moment, but you've admitted here and now to practices others find objectionable. I believe both camping and bot use have come up in this struggle before as well. My position isn't about shaming, or uncovering anything hidden, it's just my personal take based on my own morals.

Pushing through a competitive trademark is no more illegal than manipulating SE rankings, and no less objectionable to some. both are as common as corporate headhunting, and all still leave me with a bad taste in my mouth.

I make no argument that they aren't effective tools, only my personal distaste for their use.

You stand by your business decisions, and I respect that, it doesn't mean I agree though.

[Phil Deakins]

I'm surprised if that's all you meant, Void - you made it sound much worse

It really wasn't about "so much more" as you put it, and the only thing that could possibly be described as "dirty" on my part was something you didn't know about until I posted it here - keeping his search rankings below the fold, which is something that I don't feel was immoral or unethical, considering the fact that my business name should never have been listed in search as his business name and in the identical field of commerce.

I didn't imply that he did anything illegal (although he did), or against the "rules of the moment". I have always said that he stole the name, which he did. Stealing can be perfectly legal, but knowingly using an existing businesses name, so that the business can be mistaken for an already existing business, is against the law. That's why, if you start  trading as "CocaCola" or "Coca Cola", you will be taken to court by "Coca-Cola", found guilty under the law, and made to pay. It's civil law, but it's law just the same. A registered trademark isn't necessary - it merely makes it easier to prove the case.

Camping has never come up in the discussions concerning this matter. I've no idea whether or not he used camping but I never did until earlier this year for a while, when it was perfectly in accordance with the rules - it was on its own parcel which was not listed in search. The use of bots never came into it either. I've no idea if he used bots or not. I used to use them when they were allowed, as you know, but the rules changed and I stopped using them before he started his business.

So this matter is not about "so much more" at all. It's only about someone knowingly using my long-established business name to trade in the same field of commerce, so that his business could easily be mistaken for mine, and nothing more.

[Void Singer]

my apologies then, the "so much more" remark was directed at the personalized nature of the feud, and not so much any practices involved... your enjoyment of punishing him in search result and his own stubbornness at the outset highlights that to my mind, in addition to past appeals to public opinion.

we'll have to disagree about the difference between the letter of the law (or rules) and the spirit of them, but I'm willing to let it go at that.

[Phil Deakins]

Well, it *was* personal. I simply don't believe that anyone who was starting up a "low prim furniture" business in SL could do it without having a look at what already existed - by at least doing a search on "low prim furniture" or just "furniture". And, if a search was done, my Prim Savers name couldn't have been missed since it was always at and around the very top of the results in both the Places tab and in the All (GSA) tab long before he started up. In spite of what he claimed, I can't believe that his choice of name was not intended to mislead people into thinking that his business was the long-established Prim Savers.

But, as you said, we'll let it go at that

[Thor Effingham]

/me runs to get a trademark on PrimMisers.

[Thor Effingham]

Never mind, decided to go for Micro Soft instead.