McCarriage of Justice

How many strikes should a corporation be allowed before we, the public, revoke their charter?

Sarah Nardi
|
09 Sep 2009
|
96 comments

Fast food giant McDonald’s has just been handed a stunning defeat by a Malaysian high court in an epic trademark dispute. The ruling ended an eight-year battle in which the megacorporation attempted to prevent a small curry restaurant from using the prefix “Mc” in its name. McCurry (which stands for “Malaysian Chicken Curry”) argued that it had every right to use the two consonants and that McDonald’s claim that the two restaurants could be confused was unfounded. McCurry offers an Indian menu (including, among other things, fish head curry) while McDonald’s sticks to arguably less palatable “Western” fare. In addition to granting McCurry the rights to the disputed prefix, the court ordered McDonald’s to pay all legal costs incurred by the defendant. McDonald’s has a history of attacking anyone who dares string the two letters together: the company has previously brought legal action against a curry restaurant in Jamaica and the Oxford English Dictionary for listing the definition of “McJob.” Hopefully having its McAss handed to it by Malaysia’s highest court will end the corporation’s global monopoly on the two letters, allowing small business owners and a good part of Scotland to breathe easy.

But what can we do to prevent bullying megacorporations from treating the world like one giant school yard? For every Malaysian McCurry there are untold numbers of little guys slain by corporate Goliaths. For every staggering judgment (like Pfizer’s recent $2.3 billion settlement with the FDA) there are a slew of shady backroom deals in which corporations make a mint at the public’s expense. How many strikes should a corporation be allowed before we, the public, are allowed to revoke their charter? What are some effective ways for civil society to fight back against corporate power?

– Sarah Nardi

Support + Share

Help us spread the word. Share it online with your friends or subscribe to the print edition.

October
28, 2009
08:32 am
Link

oh my how did i end up here ? people people easy there its just a bit of news old news at that, if you want to get upset get up set about somthing that really matters dying people,depleted forests. christ there are so many things and you half wits pick this grow a brain or please don't log on

— mcbored

October
28, 2009
09:25 am
Link

Depleted forests? Where? There are regional deforestation issues - mostly due to poverty in rural forested areas (which underlines the need to help third world countries develop a higher standard of living) - but the overall forested area globally has been generally stable since the 50's. In fact there has been a small increase in forested area since about 1957 (FAO Production Yearbooks 1949-95 - U.N. facts, so they must be true, right?). Most of civilization's deforestation took place in the 19th century and forest area has been on the comeback ever since.

— McAnonymous

October
28, 2009
10:02 pm
Link

ok mr McAnonymous done much traveling lately i presume not! i have just spent 2 years traveling the globe and seen with my own eyes huge areas of depleted forests brazil,thailand, china, the list goes on seeing as you dont travel much look up palm oil you can do it just enter it in search now back to the main issue my statement was that there are bigger issues out there try reading what i wrote and useing that thing that ratles around inside your head oh and have a great day!

— mcbored

October
29, 2009
09:50 am
Link

You illustrate a great point that is endemic to the human condition - egocentrism. People always think that the things they experience (their surroundings, their geography, their point in history) is the real state of the world. Unfortunately for the masses, the press also has a huge impact on their perception of the world. Naturally the press tends toward catastrophe and negative news - "Everything was good today" makes for a pretty poor headline.

I think it's great that you've spent so much time travelling. You likely spent the majority of your time in, and close to civilization where trees may have been cut down. Even if you spent a lot of time in the rain forests you wouldn't get a sense of the enormity of the forest coverage, only a sense of the enormity of the areas being cut down. I'm not blaming you for that, I'm saying that unless viewed via satellite, you can't possibly compare the two.

I'm simply stating what's been reported by the Food And Agriculture Organization at the U.N. It's a group of scientists that dedicate their careers to surveying the exact topic we're discussing. If you think their reports are wrong, then I suggest you find contrary reports.

— McAnonymous

October
29, 2009
09:33 pm
Link

"I think it's great that you've spent so much time travelling. You likely spent the majority of your time in, and close to civilization where trees may have been cut down." McAnonymous

in answer to your question no i didn't spend my time close to civilization i spent as much time as i could as far away from it as i could you see i wanted to see for my self not read it in a papper or a book like your self. The devistation around civilized zones is one thing its when one ventures past the next green belt that things really start to show mining ,deforestation native people being forced off there lands by force care to coment on that one as i have a number of photos that will back this and a couple of witnesses one being yossi ghinsberg probably unknown to you without the power of your search bar umm and what was i doing out there well my background is medicine with a PhD in Biotechnology of Infectious Diseases i was looking at the next range of diseases that as a race we are about to encounter due to virgin areas of forest that have been removed most of which go into making the same books you keep quoteing or the furniture your siting on you see i have met many people like your self that sit behind the anonymity off a lap top and quote skripture this atricle that book the interesting thing i have found is that 99.9% of you give nothing back to society what so ever the only thing you do is berate others slam business and complain in general about your lot in life do me a favour get out from your pocky appartment and travel meet real people see real things experience life and try giving a little back to the very society that has carried your whineing arse this far and oh by the way egocentric take a look at your other posts i think it would be very safe to say here lies the case of the kettle calling the pot black in other words try having look at your self ah wait that might scare you, you might see who you really are wouldn't want that would we. have a truely fantastic day and stay away from the mirror

— McBored

October
31, 2009
04:28 pm
Link

You've obviously proven yourself inable to write (see above) or read. I have never complained about my lot in life - I'm doing okay thanks. The irony - which of course would be lost on you - is that my writing is consistently fighting against the whiney, puerile, impotent philosophy of this website. I'm not whining, I'm fighting the whiners.

...and once again, you're driving my point further home for me. Thanks. You're further personalizing the issue of deforestation with your tales of photographs and "witnesses." That's 100% egocentric. My point was that to truly know the state of the world - forest coverage in this case - one needs to look at global data. While, yes, there are regional issues that need addressing (AGAIN through economic development of rural communities) overall the globe has stable forest coverage as referenced by the U.N. Just pointing out a lie of the envirofascists. Not my data - the U.N.

They'll give anyone a PhD nowadays! I'll bet your thesis was one big run-on sentence wrist-slasher! Give me your address, I'll buy you some punctuation and grammar.

— McAnonymous

November
06, 2009
01:05 am
Link

my my what is it like to be hated so, to be hated on the internet is one thing
(see the posts with your response) but i'll bet your hated in your everyday life as well not much of a life really is it ,haven't really amounted to much have you!
you say that you are not whining but fighting sounds more like whining to me and a lot of others upon reading the rest of the posts as for egocentric take a look at your self no really take a good long look .
As for your reliance on data my god man do you really belive every thing that is written do you really belive in data that takes 5 years to collect ,have a good look at the study you quoted 5 years in total a lot changes in 5 years as far as my Phd is concerned medicine cancer research last time i looked i didn't see any one handing out free PhD'S and what are your qualifications ...none! et you didn't finish high school and probably failed primary they just did want you there any more so thy moved you on.
so you bought a computer and thought you would fight the world from yu little appartment ,how brave of you somthing tells me this is about the extent of fighting you may do probably a weady nerd guy that couldn't fight his way out of a wet papper bag ,got picked on at school and not looked at twice by a member of the opposite sex. oh and thank you for your analism re my writing but when i last looked punctuation and grammer were up to the writer and not items for sale.
on a closing note get out there and fight somthing real commit your self to somthing you know, a real life with real meaning you can do it go forth and multiply and stop whining.

— Mcbored

November
10, 2009
11:09 am
Link

So absolutely no point at all? Very effective at structuring your arguments once again - or more your desperate clawing at my life. Amusing. It's actually customary in intellectual circles to attack one's arguments - not the person. Heard of that?
As for data - once again - yes, I would take data collected over 5 years by actual scientists over your egocentric vignettes. Thanks - again - for making my point - again.
I thought you would look at punctuation as some kind of self-defined, post-modern relativist notion. I'm embarrassed that the school system has failed you so badly. The language of English actually has rules of grammar, which unless otherwise followed make you look like an idiot (see above).

— McAnonymous

November
17, 2009
07:26 pm
Link

McBored.... man u are so right why do you think people don't engage this idot
McAnonymous.......get the message dude and go forth Mcbored is right you are a sad man

— Anonymous

October
27, 2009
08:33 pm
Link

In Charleston and Mattoon there is a restaurant called McHugh's that is successful, even when the one in Charleston is directly across the street from McDonald's. Any legal activities between the two has been unrelated to the prefix. Thought you might care to know.

— Anonymous

October
26, 2009
06:38 pm
Link

Sorry Folks but McDonalds has a point. Any restaurant that uses the Mc in their name IS infringing on their brand. They are not original enough to come up with something different and should not be allowed to use it. I am very confident (not because I work for them) that McDonalds requested they change their name before going to court. If there were a McDonalds furniture store there would not be an issue.

— Anonymous

October
22, 2009
03:44 pm
Link

In more recent news Monster Energy Drink (Hanson's) based out of California is suing a 7 employee micro brewery in Vermont to change the name of one of their beers: The Vermonster, because it may 'confuse' Monster Energy Drink/Hanson's customers. In retaliation and number of convienent stores in the region have stopped selling Hanson's products.
And Trek Bicycles/Trek Travel, etc... (think American golden boy Lance Armstrong) are suing a winery in California named 'Trek Winery' as it will 'confuse' Trek Travel customers.

I love my country.

*sigh*

— McConfused

October
20, 2009
10:07 pm
Link

Several years ago in California, McDonald's forced my sister-in-law and her husband to change the name of their Vegan Restaurant. It had been "McDharma's". How anyone could confuse a fast food burger place with a vegetarian eatery is beyond me, but McDonald's apparently worried that it might happen.

So, Yay, Malaysia!

— Anonymous

October
21, 2009
08:35 am
Link

Why the hell would anyone put "Mc" in their restaurant's name? Just to try to make a point?

— Anonymous

October
19, 2009
02:51 pm
Link

it isnt the corporation's fault: they are a mindless entity just playing by the rules of the game. change the rules, not the corporation. that is like fighting a shadow.
#1: revoke their status as a human equivalent
#2: no one can sit on the board of two different corps
#3: 100% publicly funded elections

— Anonymous

October
22, 2009
10:57 am
Link

Corporations are not mindless entities. There are rules to the "game" but corporations contribute to politicians' campaigns in North America so that these politicians will draft laws favorable to their businesses. Corporations play an enormous role in creating the rules. Too often abused people identify with the abuser and say it isn't their fault. Our minds, and our bodies, are being abused by corporations like McDonalds, and here is somebody trying to say it isn't their fault. You've already lost.

— MattJ

October
20, 2009
12:32 am
Link

I think people should take a better look at things, before taking (and eating) any corporate crap of all that is being served on the society's menu. We are being given exactly what THEY want... and we are happy!... at least most of us are... (I'm not, since I know at least in part that what they give me is NOT what I deserve). Kill consumism! before it kill's us and all around us.

— Jan Mulder (Not afraid to state my name!)

October
20, 2009
08:17 am
Link

What's consumism?? Sounds like a soup.

— Anonymous

October
18, 2009
12:47 am
Link

Every time I stumble on one of these boards or topics there's always someone like McAnonymous, and it depresses me every time. He's the kind of crazy where he can come back and reply to all these comments that affirm that he's an insane person, and gets around it by using his well educated vocabulary and dodgy logic to attack again while only spitting slander and bullshit. Everyone who refutes him doesn't have the heart to keep doing it, so he stays in his ill informed little world. There are people like this and it's horrible. It makes me want the world to end because humans don't deserve to live if these people persist poisoning thought and halting progress. If I had the power I would end him and everyone like him. I'm not a good person, but at least I'm not that.

— Anonymous

October
19, 2009
10:09 am
Link

Not to worry, you're not alone. Many in the adbuster ranks get depressed and run back to their parents' basement when faced with actual facts. I know you don't appreciate people attacking the dogma you've swallowed but just can't quite digest, but that's why people like me enjoy writing in places like this - if we can reach even one brainwashed lefty, we will have made the world a better place.

Chin up sport. Many of your idols started out as disaffected, mediocre non-starts. The socialist dictators were pretty much all drop-outs, social outcasts and losers: so there's hope for you yet! I see by your threats and ad hominem attacks, you're a little fascist-in-training. Good start.

While you're indulging in your impotent fantasies about ending the world in an effort to avoid discussion and debate, we'll still be here keeping up the good fight! Cheers.

— McAnonymous

October
19, 2009
02:36 pm
Link

"if we can reach even one brainwashed lefty, we will have made the world a better place. "

I, for one, do not believe so. I believe that corrupting another mind to that awful, self centered, arrogant ideology you carry around would be a disgrace. You are dismissing other peoples beliefs as being fascist, yet you claim ideological superiority. The fact is that trying to reach lefties and imposing YOUR political ideology unto them is the very essence of fascism, the claim of superiority over others.

I might as well comment on this too while I'm at it:
"America is the last outpost of civilization and individualism in the western world. As the elitist-run european semi-socialist states disappear down their own culturally-suicidally low birthrates, the US is the lone beacon of hope. Contrary to what you "think," the difference between you and the Americans is that they are actually proud of who they are, are rooted in a deep sense of national identity and actually expect something of themselves. This website is a microcosm of leftist, self-loathing thought - and the proof of its effectiveness is borne out every day. While the adbuster hipsters sit about and impotently whine all day, the rest of the world moves along just fine.
P.S. The Mac isn't cultural - it's a burger."

Wait, wait, wait... Are we Europeans the ones in trouble all of a sudden? You should know that the only reason we have "Suicidally low(or as we like to call it: Stable) birthrates" is because the majority of the European population (at least in Northern Europe) actually has what they need to survive. Where else do we find high birthrates apart from America? Africa. The poorest countries in the world often are the ones with the highest birthrate, because people need some kind of insurance, and if society can't provide it they have to leave the burden on their children. I refuse to believe that a high birthrate signify a healthy society. Enough about that, moving on.

America is a sole beacon of hope? I don't really know, they started two wars, led a global economic crisis, host the highest number of fatal injuries (often related to violence) in the western world, openly fight efforts to improve climate-regulations, and even break the human rights. Even the things you used to be able to brag about is slowly waning. You don't lead the technological scene anymore, your economy is losing to China, fear of terror is slowly robbing you of the freedom that was the foundation of America, corruption is at an all time high and powerful people are even referring to America as a "Christian Nation".
You may be proud, but I certainly doubt you have anything to be proud of.
I come from Denmark, and pretty many of us look to America when we need a reason not to thread the path of the extremist right.

By the way, I don't frequent this site, actually I only just found it today, but that guy McAnonymous provoked me enough to do this. Mission accomplished Mr Mc.

— Another Anonymous

October
21, 2009
10:07 am
Link

My central ideology is to enshrine the rights of the invidual - most importantly against the creeping, do-good nanny state and it's throngs of bureaucrats and "experts." How can that possibly be "awful, self centered, arrogant"? Awful as opposed to unfettered power of the state? I want you to have the same rights to make your own choices - so it's not self-centered. It may actually be arrogant - in the sense that I believe I know which choices I should make for my own life better than a beaurocrat, a judge or a politician. So...I'm actually fighting against those that would impose ideologies on everyone, I'm not trying to impose any ideology.

Yes, you Europeans are in trouble. Your way of life is collapsing as we speak. Unsupportable social programs, abyssmal birth rates and productivity - give it a generation or two. The only reason you have what you need is that the nanny state is providing it for you (you even say yourself "if society can't provide it..."). As one Brit told me, the Europeans are "having too much fun to have children." You can't compare African birthrates (agrarian) to European birthrates (post-industrial) and draw the conclusion you have. By your logid, the healthiest society would have 0 kids? That wouldn't last too long would it?

America is the beacon of hope, because there are still glimmers of individual rights left in that society. I'm actually Canadian, and I see our rights slowly but consistently taken away and subsumed by the government. It's not a good feeling. The US citizens still lean on their constitution - we don't. We can further discuss the other points about the US if you wish - but your point that the US is "extremist right" only goes to show exactly how far left the entire political spectrum has moved in the past 40 years. Not to worry - the backlash from the idiots in Norway bestowing the "peace prize" on Obama prehumously will be a crystalizing moment for the common sense, conservative masses.

— McAnonymous

October
28, 2009
10:11 pm
Link

you say your canadian well i have an answer to your rights being taken away MOVE! instead of puting up with it and complaining on every blog site and people that will listen to you for more than 5 minutes do somthing about it or is your answer youshouldn't have to move every one should change to meet your standard me thinks you do a lot of reading and not much of anything else get a life

— mcbored

October
31, 2009
04:35 pm
Link

Very well put together! You're phd is really paying off again.
You must be a rabid right-winger to come out with a statement like that! Is that your usual stance on immigration?
Please stop embarrassing yourself in front of everyone. Once you actually have something to say above the grade 5 level, knock yourself out. Until then, let the grown-ups talk, sport.

— McAnonymous

October
22, 2009
11:43 am
Link

P.S. There is a growing right-wing ethos in Europe at the moment, if you recall Austria`s last election. In many places, xenophobia is kicking in due to the increase in the Muslim population through immigration and the low birth rate of European nationals. Xenophobia of course is an aspect of right-wing sentiment. And it is unreasonable to suggest that the US is not moving to the right, even to the point that the new left in America would have been centrist in the 60s. Read America`s Right Turn: From Nixon to Clinton, to see how society as a whole began to carry right-wing sentiments.

— MattJ

October
23, 2009
08:48 am
Link

How is it that xenophobia is right wing? What do you think right wing is?

— McAnonymous

October
22, 2009
11:28 am
Link

McAnonymous, remember that human beings are SOCIAL animals. We live in social groups, and require social interaction to be stable, healthy people. You seem to think that individuals have rights greater than the community of which they are a part. Lets take a really small community, say, the nuclear family. If the father was to say to his family that his individual rights are a greater concern than the well-being of the family, he will be divorced and probably very lonely in his later life. I have nothing against individualism, but to say individuals' rights are more important than the community's well-being goes against human nature, as a social animal.

Second, don't tell us that the European "semi-socialist" states rely on "experts" to tell them what's what while pretending the US is full of actively engaged individuals who make informed choices about their own lives. EVERY technological society relies on "experts". This derives from the nature of education in technologically advanced societies. People don't go to school to learn a bit about everything, they go to learn something specific, and they join one "field" or another, so by the time we reach adulthood, we are all "experts" in one field or another. Take the stupid new Pantene commercial, which asks the question "want beautiful, shiny, healthy-looking hair?" to which the company trying to sell the product advises us to ask their "experts". Yes, the healthy hair experts at Pantene will tell you. Jim Kramer, or whatever his name is, from the show "Mad Money" stands there screaming financial advice at us because he is an "expert". In Canada, we are not expected to make financial decisions before asking the "experts" at Scotiabank for a goddamned second opinion. CNN, Fox News, and all the other major media outlets are relied upon for their pundits' "expertise". I think you are looking at Europe's regulatory framework and making a judgement about the societies without experiencing life in those societies. The grass sure looks greener in Europe to Europeans.

Oh yeah, remember the Iraq War? When the US Congress allowed Bush to go to war even though most people didn`t want that. How about when Spain`s government actually listened to its population`s wishes and did not join the effort. Stop pretending that Europe is run by the elites while America`s entire political system isn`t in the pockets of rich oil barons, media tycoons, and the defense industry.

— MattJ

October
23, 2009
11:55 am
Link

By the US Constitution and by common sense, individual rights always supercede common rights. That's how you keep morons like hitler from gaining power because its anathema to fascist ideology. The sole proviso to that is of course that one individual's rights can't contravene someone else's. That's common sense too. We're speaking at a political level of course - I'm not advocating antisocial interpersonal behaviour.

The point is that the creeping power of European governments contravene individual rights as more and more of "life" is taken over by the state. The French university, the ENA was set up by De Gaulle to educate it's ruling elite. The school's grads form a circular, self-perpetuating group of politicians, bureaucrats and henchmen who run the country. They've enacted a law that a sitting politician cannot by tried - for any reason - so they all become senators for life. When the populations of a European country vote down the EU constitution, the politicians take it upon themselves to enact a "treaty" that doesn't need a vote but which will be a de facto constitution. That's separating the ruling elite from it's population. Say what you will about the US (they're not perfect), but that bullying of the herd mentality wouldn't stand.

You know what? You have choices. I want you to have choices. So don't listen to Kramer, buy Pantene or watch TV!! The difference is when politicians feel that they know better than the people and chip away at your choices...you don't have a choice with that. You can't change the channel! That's why any government that seeks to expand itself is dangerous.

— McAnonymous

October
29, 2009
10:07 pm
Link

ps. I don't know where you're getting numbers from on Iraq. Any source I can find says that in 2003 roughly 72% of the population felt that using force in Iraq was the right choice. That dropped to 50% only in 2005 and it's bounced around that number ever since (despite a growing opinion that the war is having an increasing positive effect and that troops should stay until Iraq is stabilized).
— McAnonymous
well mister you seem to be able to read newspappers as you quote the figures above why not sign up and come on over here to Iraq and lets see you stabilize the country . why not try asking real america what it wants and that is it wants it boys home not here to stabilize a country that will never be stabilized while we are here, besides looking at your other posts here you are Canucklehead so tell me what gives you the right to say what america wants stay your side of the water and keep your coments to your own purile goverment or nut up and come on over here

— o'connor

October
30, 2009
02:49 pm
Link

Didn't mean to get personal Ms. O'Connor. Oh right, I didn't, you did. I actually was telling everyone what "real america" was saying - that's what polls and surveys do. By the way nobody or nothing "gives me the right" to say what I want. Read your constitution buddy - I HAVE the right to talk. In Canada that right has been challenged in recent years by our human "rights" commissions, but at least for now they're being beaten down.

ps. There's no water between US and Canada
ps. I'm not Canucklehead

— McAnonymous

We are a global network of culture jammers and creatives working to change the way information flows, the way corporations wield power, and the way meaning is produced in our society.

Now 83,840 strong!

Join Us >>