You're missing the point, which is that you can't just make up an opinion about whether something causes consumer confusion. It's a legal term that gets interpreted in a particular way.

I try not to downvote people for mere opinions that differ from mine, but I will downvote people whose posts are just uninformed or simply wrong.

(I didn't downvote here, because I'm not super familiar with how the courts interpret consumer confusion, but I suspect that the parent is just wrong about the term, and it's not just a matter of opinion).

Has it? The quoted article had an interview with a developer where the developer mentioned IMAX. Not the article, but a guy with quotes around it. How does that lead to any consumer confusion at all?

At least HN doesn't seem to be perpetuating the Reddit hypocrisy about voting for quality and not popularity, but the problem remains, voting popular opinions up and unpopular ones down only serves to turn the place into an echo chamber. Though mostly it's annoying to have to select the text to be able to read it as it gets lighter and lighter.

Stylish browser addon -> Add CSS for HN for "font { color: #333 !important; }"

Now all comments are the same color, regardless of votes.

I dislike the fading mechanism for the reasons I describe here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9746702

Good idea. But what I should do is write a script that in addition to that puts and indicator so I know which posts the HN readership has decided my feeble little mind needs to be spared from lest I too start having unpopular opinions.

Which is too late by now anyway, since I have tons of them.

I've obviously given up caring about downvotes here or I wouldn't have said anything at all on this story.

I don't understand why the mods think discouraging people from expressing unpopular opinions is desirable. It puzzles me to the extent that I wonder if I misunderstand the purpose of having comments at all. But it's how it is.

The problem isn't that your opinion is unpopular. The problem is that you're misrepresenting your opinion in terms of a legal concept. The term "confusion" has specific meaning in trademark law, which you seem to resist acknowledging. Even if you have a point, you're going to frustrate others by being thick-headed.

See dragonwriter's comment for a good concise clarification.

Honestly, we're all just talking past each other. I knew it would be hopeless to get the idea across in this environment of jump all over the stupid thing of the day, but I wanted to try anyway.

As far as the legal concept goes, it should be clear that I'm just interpreting what IMAX's general counsel seems to believe. Whether you agree with her or not, I wouldn't say she's uninformed on the topic.

Uninformed or not, IMAX' action was stupid and self-destructive and they know it:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/06/imax-apologizes-t...

Eh. It just happened to be a stupid story of the day. The other 1000 people they sent letters to either complied or did nothing.