Prediction Markets + Market Predictions = Collective Forecasting That Pays Off
You can follow all the replies to this entry through the comments feed.
Jason Ruspini on OBAMACARE PREDICTION MARKET WAS BRIEFLY MANIPULATED YESTERDAY EVENING SO IT WOULD ARTIFICIALLY CLOSE AT $35. – [CHART]
Paul Hewitt on When the ObamaCare event derivative reaches 80%, I will officially declare America as a socialist country —just like France and Sweden.
Chris F. Masse on We interrupt this report to bring you some Jazz.Chris F. Masse on OBAMACARE PREDICTION MARKET WAS BRIEFLY MANIPULATED YESTERDAY EVENING SO IT WOULD ARTIFICIALLY CLOSE AT $35. – [CHART]Chris F. Masse on “InTrade should address this incident and suspend the account of whoever did this.”
Niall O'Connor on We interrupt this report to bring you some Jazz.Niall O'Connor on OBAMACARE PREDICTION MARKET WAS BRIEFLY MANIPULATED YESTERDAY EVENING SO IT WOULD ARTIFICIALLY CLOSE AT $35. – [CHART]Niall O'Connor on “InTrade should address this incident and suspend the account of whoever did this.”
Max Keiser on OBAMACARE PREDICTION MARKET WAS BRIEFLY MANIPULATED YESTERDAY EVENING SO IT WOULD ARTIFICIALLY CLOSE AT $35. – [CHART]Jason Ruspini on OBAMACARE PREDICTION MARKET WAS BRIEFLY MANIPULATED YESTERDAY EVENING SO IT WOULD ARTIFICIALLY CLOSE AT $35. – [CHART]
It’s pretty clear that NewsFutures invented the term back in 2006 to refer to a specific new collective prediction tool it started fielding at the time as an alternative to “prediction markets”.
Congrats for being a pioneer.
But that’s only one aspect of the problematic.
Let’s say a company has “invented” this term, and is using it to describe a product.
Now, let’s say that scholars and people are now using this term to describe a class of products.
Then, that company would lose its trademark (registered or not).
If it’s a common term, then it can’t be a trademark.
That’s why I have always advised businesses to register trademarks that are not generic. Non-generic trademarks (“Nike”, “Apple”, “Philips”, “HubDub”, etc.) are more difficult to establish at first, but, long term, they win over weaker brands.
I’m right here, Chris–a loyal reader!
My two cents on “competitive forecasting”: It probably rises above a merely generic mark, which could never be protected, because it is not the commonplace name for the service to which it refers. It more likely qualifies as a descriptive mark, and as such could be protected only if “secondary meaning” were proven. In other words, the claimant would have to show that by dint of long exposure to its use in a commercial context, consumers had come to understand the mark not as a mere description but as the name of the claimant’s service. Whether or not “competitive forecasting” can meet that test remains a question of fact, of course.
Caveat: I speak only of U.S. law, though most common law countries follow similar principles.
Very interesting comment, thanks a lot.
“In other words, the claimant would have to show that by dint of long exposure to its use in a commercial context, consumers had come to understand the mark not as a mere description but as the name of the claimant’s service.”
-
I’d bet on “no”.
-
Emile started off that brand in 2006 only, and other thinkers are using this term to mean other things.
-