Cory Doctorow at Boing Boing elaborates on the Wired article regarding the waning power of brands. Fair enough, but the article has something of a false premise. Consumer protection is one of two, not the sole, rationale for trademark law. The other rationale is the protection of the trademark owner’s intellectual property. A brand is an asset and acts by third parties can misappropriate and damage the value of that asset. Trademark law protects the owner of that asset. See Chadwick v. Covell, 23 N.E. 1068 (1890) (Holmes, J.). There is no basis given by Mr. Doctorow for referring to a trademark as psuedo-property. Why is it pseudo-property, because it’s intangible? That would be an odd position to take from someone who makes a living as a writer.