> DAFT PUNK™

I quite like Daft Punk but that ™ makes them uncool very quickly. Immediately makes me assume it's just a brand name now, run by an agency, music work outsourced to freelance ghost composers, and so on. Like Philips TVs and "Jamie Oliver" cookware.

In a final act of defiance, Salazar Slytherin™ constructed The Chamber of Secrets™. A huge Basilisk was bewitched to honor his 'true heir' and bring ruthless destruction upon all Muggle™-born.

When i built the lego hogwarts set i had to read through stuffs like this. I know. Lego is a big corporation. Harry potter is too. normaly i can ignore that i am just feeding money to geedy Corporate. But i could not this time

I think big organizations, by necessity, operate in a very compartmentalized way. Almost nobody is viewing the whole. Designers care about aesthetics. Lawyers care about risk. Developers care about shipping. IT Security cares about vulnerability. I really think this is unavoidable at scale. There's just no incentive for any of these groups to care about the other groups. Which is why you need a buck stops with me BDFL Steve Jobs like a-hole that looks at "DAFT PUNK™" and says, "absolutely not."

I actually asked about this on HN a long, long time ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20704840 My takeaway from the feedback there was that IP lawyers just aren't the sharpest tools in the shed.

> it's just a brand name now

What else can it be since they parted ways?

Part of their schtick is wearing those costumes right? So you don't even know who's performing. The only song of theirs that I know is a collab with a different singer and has a guitar part from Niles Rodgers, so while they probably do have some impact on the music, it's not clear to me how one would be able to tell this hasn't always been the case.

I suppose one could say something similar about LEGO™.