Malazan

doesn't matter where it comes from if you test positive

Urbik is not a tackle converted to guard. He was a guard in college. I don't believe he has ever played tackle.

9

He would get 50 Million dollars if any team is put in Toronto since it is in the Bills area. The amount may have changed. A team in Toronto expands the overall football market. You can google Tesla opening up its patents to competitors to understand the economic theory behind it. By expanding the market, your 'competition' (NFL teams are not exactly direct competition) may make more money, but the larger market means there is a bigger pie to share.

Seeing as he owns the Sabres and is well aware of the financial benefits the hockey team in Toronto brings to them and the large cash windfall that would come with such a team to him, I'm guessing he would not exactly be against it.

Please don't bring back the Jills

I like how you operate from this automatic view that you're right and everyone else has a narrow view. I question your ability to be a moderator with that stance.

There will be much gnashing of teeth and many 'excuses' why he was good and lots of talk about how teams will be ready for him next year.

I believe that 'right minded' people would stay on topic. This thread is specifically about the patent office. I feel that people bringing whether it is the 'right' thing to do are using that as a crutch. I can only come to the conclusion that they are unable to separate what the patent office has done from whether it is the socially/morally right thing to do.

They would be as attractive as the Jills.

Many people are confused by this. Same thing with Gary Bettman.

He got what he deserved. I'd be more forgiving if he had done it just once as an extreme act of idiocy.

but not too much so he doesn't get winded

I've spoken with Obama who was a lawyer and is currently President of the United States. He says it is not feasible. The Buffalo Bills will be moved to Washington and renamed to the Washington Injins.

The Buffalo News reporters people who write words will be the cast members for Grumpy Old Men 3

Can we end the thread now?

I trust Roger Goodell. I trust him so much I even email him nude pictures with my social security number every week.

It is about trademarks...the whole thing is about the trademark being revoked. I don't want it to end up that you can't trademark 'Dan & Dan's Gay Extravaganza' because it is offensive to people. I don't want people saying you can't 'Muhammad's Islam Grill' because people find it offensive. I think you need to think further about the possible exploitation of this action.

Stop with the straw man about whether or not it is offensive. The question is whether the USPTO should be the one pressuring businesses to change their name. The article posted above does a good job of explaining it: http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/archives/sunnews/straighttalk/2014/06/20140620-072037.html

I'm not sure it's wise to piss off 2 of the biggest names in coaching who have large coaching trees throughout the league. Then add Rex to it, a guy whom Pettine's rolodex will have a lot of the same people in it...regardless of whether Pettine will be a good coach or not, that seems like an unnecessary hurdle to put in front of yourself.

You keep using this argument which is very dishonest. This thread is not about whether it is the right thing to do. The name should have been changed a long time ago. The thread is about whether the USPTO is an agency that should be pressuring businesses to 'do the right thing'. We have an oligarchy for government. It does not operate under the principles of a republic. http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/

You managed to determine a lot about my knowledge of said law from that line that didn't mention anything about patent or trademark law. "I'm not saying you're dumb - far from it - but other posters process things very quickly"

It's wrong. The fact that people are offended is not a reason for the USPTO to step into it. It's a great reason for the NFL, the fans, etc to do so. No reason the USPTO should be pushing the issue.

You're right, it's not an argument against changing the name. It's an argument against the USPTO taking action. I notice you conveniently leave out the other examples. I guess 'News Whores' is ok with you.

Using the same logic the USPTO applied in the Redskins case, the NAACP and United Negro College Fund should be forced to give up their trademarks as well. And while not trademarked per se, I assume the State of Oklahoma will now be considering renaming itself. After all, Oklahoma means "Red Man" in Choctaw... Then there's FAG, a mark for "lubricating oils and greases." Yep. The mark is registered and is not pending cancelation. This is not offensive according to the USPTO. Stinky Gringo is the valid trademark for a type of premixed alcoholic cocktail. And one more direclty analogous to the Redskins: RedMan is a mark registered for chewing tobacco, complete with Indian logo. It is a national brand, and the mark, far from being canceled, has been renewed without a hitch. And then there's registered marks "NewsWhore", "Bitches Bash", "Creepy-Ass Cracka", and "Suck It", all of which enjoy good standing at the USPTO. But Redskins? No, that's offensive and has to go. The Redskins should be renamed, but the USPTO is not the appropriate place to try to legislate them into changing. It would be a bleak, dark place if we legislated whether or not people could use language someone deems offensive. Even if it is the majority that deems it offensive.