Neither of those is compelling to me. Once you step into the arena, you fight by the arena's rules.

Show Post

But once Pattie sat down at the chessboard opposite Patagonia, it's no longer appropriate or reasonable to argue about whether or not Patagonia should be playing chess. Chess is the game Pattie chose to challenge Patagonia to, and it's played by the rules of chess.

Show Post

If she was operating entirely outside that legal frame, then yeah, there's a valuable conversation to be had about whether Patagonia needed to resolve this within the legal paradigm or whether they'd have been better served with business and/or social acts.

Show Post

OK. Here's where I'd push back there: Yes, this discussion has revolved around the operation of the law rather than the moral or social appropriateness of the law. However, when Pattie filed her trademark, she voluntarily put herself under the legal arena so she could benefit from that operation.

Show Post

To point 3) in the lawsuit Patagonia only asked the court to prevent the infringing marks be rejected, not all of them. They didn't do the "all marks" thing on social media until after PG escalated onto their own social media, misrepresenting the lawsuit

Show Post