I have to disagree.
There is no right side of the slippery-slope argument because there isn't one. Ford's statements about intellectual property rights are correct and not really any different from the legal claims of any other company. These protections are not just permitted, but willingly enforced by the legal system of our nation because we, the people, agree in majority that they are right and proper. Without these protections, Ford would be unable to prevent gross misuse and undeserved profit by others and we, as a nation, would be as ineffective as China in our ability to protect the creations of our entrepreneurs. It would be sheerest folly for Ford to abdicate any of these legal protections and foolish for anyone to expect they should.
However:
Ford completely fails to understand they do not create some of the things they fear will be "misappropriated". Specifically "goodwill" and "reputation". Ford neither designs nor builds these. They cannot be copyrighted or trademarked. They are bestowed willingly on Ford by consumers who have positive feelings for Ford because of their experiences with Ford's products, Ford's business practices, or both. Adverse feelings for either adversely affect Ford's goodwill and reputation, thereby damaging Ford in real and tangible ways such as through the loss of sales. For example, some of you have come to realize you can love your Explorer, but despise Ford enough over their legal enforcement stance to swear off buying another vehicle from them.
Because of their influence, goodwill and reputation are highly valued commodities. Unfortunately, the world is not black and white, and no decision made by a company has a wholly positive or negative outcome. So every company, Ford included, must constantly evaluate what actions will gain them the most goodwill and the least illwill.
It's regrettable that Ford's current stance indicates a blatant naivete or aversion to conventional business wisdom. Most companies long ago figured out that fans and enthusiasts are the segment of the market that are most likely to generate goodwill, advocate a positive reputation for the company, and generate future sales. Likewise they are the least likely to damage a company's reputation or adversely affect profits. Because of this, most companies simply decide that while they are legally empowered with the ability to force these groups to cease their activities, they simply choose not to do so.
Let me present a well-known example of what can be gained through nonaction. In the late sixties, Paramount Television (formerly Desilu Productions) produced a failed series called Star Trek. After canceling the show, a fan base developed. This following adversely affected Paramount in a number of ways. They voiced public disapproval of the company's management decisions, ran businesses producing unauthorized merchandise which profited from Paramount's intellectual property, and violated Paramount's copyrights and trademarks in countless and sometimes even profane ways (such as producing fan fiction featuring homoerotic relationships between Kirk and Spock).
Despite all this, Paramount realized this group was potentially among the company's most loyal consumers. So while they could have legally stopped everything, they instead did nothing. The result is also well-known. Star Trek is now one of the most profitable franchises in Hollywood history with 6 TV series, and soon to be 11 major motion pictures. Plus, Star Trek is a merchandising juggernaut. Paramount's losses pale in comparison to the goodwill and positive reputation they gained in return for their nonaction stance. And the amount of illwill generated because they didn't prevent people from producing things such as the aforementioned gay fiction is miniscule. Paramount's profits have also far exceeded the ill-gotten gains of fans. Because George Lucas understands this too, he appeared as the Grand Marshal for this year's Rose Bowl Parade with an escort of 200 unauthorized (but "preferred") Stormtroopers.
By enforcing their legal rights in the manner they chose, Ford has weighed the positives and negatives and made a decision. For them, the potential loss of profits from those "attempting to capitalize on or profit from Ford's goodwill and reputation. Even with the best of intentions" by producing unauthorized merchandise such as "calendar, mugs, t-shirts, etc." outweighs the potential benefits to goodwill and reputation that could be gained from positive word-of-mouth by loyal customers.
More's the pity.
Addendum:
I see as I was writing my thoughts that Ford's decided to reevaluate the potential positives and negatives of enforcing their legal protections. Obviously I think they've made a decision that will profit them more in the long run. Kudos to them for their swift action.
