Centuries ago, when unscrupulous competitors tried to pass off their wares for the real deal merchant guilds began to affix “marks” to their goods to avoid confusion among customers and to prevent fraud.   These “trademarks,” as they became known, let customers easily identify names they could trust and the  origin of the goods they wanted to buy.    

Today, the Internet has added a vast new dimension to merchant trade and the unscrupulous have again found ways to divert attention from the real deal.  As you probably know, the virtual world is a combination of things you see on your screen and things you don’t.  Included in the netherworld of HTML code are things called “meta tags,” words and phrases that search engines can read and use to identify relevant websites and rank web pages. 

There has long been debate about whether a competitor’s trademark, when used as a meta tag or is elsewhere hidden on a web page like a subliminal Internet message, constitutes a willful infringement of that competitor’s trademark.  A recent First Circuit Court of Appeals decision now says it does (Venture Tape Corp. v. Mcgills Glass Warehouse). 

It’s something you might want to let your webmaster and webdesigner know because “willful” infringement raises the ante considerably.  The penalty for violation ranges up to $1 million per violation.

Smart business owners and managers know that trademarks are powerful tools for protecting their brand platform.  The smartest ones will use them wisely and fairly.  Don’t let a hidden meta tag turn into a huge hidden liability for your company.

The Olympic Games in Beijing have showered us with heart stopping as well as heart breaking performances, new world records, and moments of intense national pride.  But the shadows of the Birds Nest hide a dark truth about China’s developing rule of law that holds a valuable lesson for corporate governance and compliance.

China’s Constitution provides for free expression and during the Olympics the Chinese government set up “protest zones” to allow citizens to express their grievances in an orderly fashion.  So far, so good.  There’s only one little hiccup.  Protests require prior approval and would-be protesters must file a Protest Application; otherwise their legal protest is illegal.  OK, still not so bad.

Nicholas D. Kristof, a NY Times Op-Ed columnist, decided to put the new system to the test.  His protest topic: preserving Beijing’s historic architecture.  The result: no permit.  His entertaining column is nonetheless well worth reading and details his Seinfeldesque interview with the Chinese Public Security Bureau, the police videographer shooting from multiple angles, his certification of the interview transcript, and what he calls the monstrous bureaucracy that dashed his “Olympic dreams.” That’s right.  No gold for you.

While the Chinese effort at due process can be applauded, not everyone filling out an application was as lucky to walk away as Mr. Kristof.  Others before him were arrested and today two grandmas got run over by bureaucracy. 

According to today’s NY Times, the two women, both in their late 70s, both walking with canes, and one partially blind, were sentenced to an “extrajudicial term of re-education through labor.” They might, however, get a suspended sentence if they stay at home and stop making trouble. 

Their “crime”: applying to hold a legal protest for receiving insufficient compensation when their homes bulldozed in the name of redevelopment.  Perhaps they would have fared better if they had had Kristof’s press pass. 

That got me thinking about how China’s challenges on the legal front are similar to those unknowingly faced by business leaders in the rest of the world. 

How many managers, for example, profess to have an open door policy but then shoot the messenger for bringing a problem to their attention?  If you happen to be the messenger it can leave you feeling like you’ve been run over by a reindeer. 

Just as China’s rough justice unnecessarily detracts from the country’s many other fine accomplishments, so too do corporate policy hiccups and mixed message communications.  It tarnishes the gold.