OCinBuffalo Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 You mean like the act of Congress that created the USPTO? http://en.wikipedia....ent_Act_of_1836 In this case though, we're not talking about a law. The USPTO granted the trademark - are you ok with that, or are you saying the USPTO overstepped in bounds in granting it? So they can grant a patent, but not revoke it? Also, it'd be nice if you would keep it civil. I don't really appreciate the offers of free education. Show me where in that law it says they can vacate a patent because it is "offensive". Show me where in that law the standards for vacating a patent for any reason are clearly specified. Come on man. You screwed the pooch with the "government" as "Congress" thing...relative to the Commerce Clause. Own it. Move on. Show me any legal precedents(might want to study up on Porn, Larry Flynt, Hustler and the Supreme Court. The 80s. The moral majority. Big hair, and the fact that both the Moral Majority and Hustler models both had big hair! Well, if you want a laugh. ) that supesede the gallons of legal precedents that defend things I consider to be "wrong", "disgusting", etc. But, what I consider wrong is no standard. Moreover, what you consider offensive, and wrong....doesn't matter! I know, it's difficult to find out that your "likes", actually don't count, when it comes to Free Speech. You're used to them counting. Most people are. Your education is your responsibility. I'm merely trying to help you out. Running around here linking to wiki is not getting it done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malazan Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 How much do you understand about Patent and Trademark Law? Judging from this post, it's close to zero. 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" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 I don't find it offensive. It just needs to be changed out of decency and respect to the ones it offends. I didn't say you found it offensive. I said you provided a metric for determining offensiveness that was nonsense. Try to keep up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 I don't need to refute anything. Your specious argument of free speech violation is "patently" incorrect. But you go right ahead and shout it from the mountain tops. I'll enjoy the comedy of your vacuous and voracious verbosity. Words? Ok. Apparently you are confusing the word "can't" with "won't" or "don't". You can't. That's clear. 3 posts of 0 substance from you. Let's try for 4! Buddy, I hate to break it to you: but when any government agency, especially a government agency, moves against a private business, way outside it's purview, like this: it better have it's legaleze 100% perfect, because the courts will always lean towards the business. Not only is the USPTO way out of bounds here, it has specifically stated that this move is predicated 100% on it being "offensive"...and no other reason. Christ, at leas if they could prove some infringement, or using the likeness of Indians without their consent..something. But, they didn't. They said "offensive and ONLY offensive" = Curb Stomp in court. The USPTO vacates patents/TMs for things like "stealing somebody else's work", or, "ultimately based on unicorn farts". It's entire claim is based on expression it deems to be offensive. That IS limiting free speech, by friggin definition. Period. Again this is not about what is right or wrong. Of course Redskins is a bad thing to name a team. I knew that when I was in 2nd grade, and said so, repeatedly. However, we don't run our country based on what you think is right and wrong(thank God). We don't run it on what I think is rigth or wrong(thank God, because that's too much work for me) We run it based on what is equitable. Vacating these TMs is not equitable, and thus, will get blown out in a court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 I didn't say you found it offensive. I said you provided a metric for determining offensiveness that was nonsense. Try to keep up. Speaking of subdued....you are rather subdued in this thread as well. I sort of feel compelled to be. However, this whole "I don't even need to argue, because my superior morality does it all!" is....grating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 However, this whole "I don't even need to argue, because my superior morality does it all!" is....grating. Now we know how people feel about us on PPP. Not that that'll stop me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Caveman Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 (edited) Show me where in that law it says they can vacate a patent because it is "offensive". Show me where in that law the standards for vacating a patent for any reason are clearly specified. Ok. http://blogs.wsj.com...ive-trademarks/ The Lanham Act., the major piece of federal trademark law, forbids any trademark that: Consists of or comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute Edited June 20, 2014 by Captain Caveman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Ok. http://blogs.wsj.com...ive-trademarks/ The Lanham Act., the major piece of federal trademark law, forbids any trademark that: Consists of or comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute But, But, But......Free Speech!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Caveman Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 (edited) So are you a professional 11th grade history teacher? Do you enjoy it? Edited June 20, 2014 by Captain Caveman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eme123 Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 The Annenberg Survey (which I posted previously) only found 9% of Native Americans found the Redskins name offensive, 90% didn't find the name offensive, and 1% didn't answer. So apparently National Congress of American Indians claims to represent Native Americans on this issue seems problematic to me. Yes, The Annenberg Survey will most likely be ignored in this thread. It is a reputable collection of info but its 10 years old. We need a survey thats more recent. It seems that the most logical step on this issue would be to take a new survey with a larger sample size. PC's are reluctant to do so because they know the results would be hugely in favor of keeping the name. I get what you're saying, but, forget about trademarks. Reduce this to the lowest level. Is it right for the Washington team to keep the nickname Redskins? There isn't a more simple question that can be asked. Yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan1959 Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Show me where in that law it says they can vacate a patent because it is "offensive". Show me where in that law the standards for vacating a patent for any reason are clearly specified. Come on man. You screwed the pooch with the "government" as "Congress" thing...relative to the Commerce Clause. Own it. Move on. Show me any legal precedents(might want to study up on Porn, Larry Flynt, Hustler and the Supreme Court. The 80s. The moral majority. Big hair, and the fact that both the Moral Majority and Hustler models both had big hair! Well, if you want a laugh. ) that supesede the gallons of legal precedents that defend things I consider to be "wrong", "disgusting", etc. But, what I consider wrong is no standard. Moreover, what you consider offensive, and wrong....doesn't matter! I know, it's difficult to find out that your "likes", actually don't count, when it comes to Free Speech. You're used to them counting. Most people are. Your education is your responsibility. I'm merely trying to help you out. Running around here linking to wiki is not getting it done. Is your argument that there are no regulations governing offensive material in the patenting process or that there are no regulations governing vacating a patent that subsequently is deemed offensive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Caveman Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Her's a much more recent survey, although the sample size certainly does not make it definitive. http://cips.csusb.edu/docs/PressRelease.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Landing Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 (edited) Yes, The Annenberg Survey will most likely be ignored in this thread. It is a reputable collection of info but its 10 years old. We need a survey thats more recent. It seems that the most logical step on this issue would be to take a new survey with a larger sample size. PC's are reluctant to do so because they know the results would be hugely in favor of keeping the name. Yes The problem that Native American proponents have with the Annenberg survey (other than the obvious fact that it doesn't fit their agenda), is that it was taken from a much broader political survey, and relied on people who self-identified as Native American. A survey taken from people who self-identified as tribal members would certainly garner a different result. At any rate, here is a very interesting link to an interview on the subject with Adam Clymer, the man who actually ran the National Annenberg Election Survey, from which the results were culled: http://indiancountry...nge-name-152737 Edited June 20, 2014 by Rocky Landing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Landing Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 (edited) Yeah, because destruction of intellectual property is exactly the same thing as protecting Free Speech. Are you going to be heading up the arguments for the USPTO in the Supreme Court case that is almost sure to be coming? If so, please tell me when it is. I'll take time off, fly in, hang out with some of my cousins, and see you get curb stomped in court. How about a little wager? Whoever wins the appeal process? I'll take the side of the USPTO decision, you take the Redskins. Whoever wins gets to choose the other's avatar for a month. Edited June 20, 2014 by Rocky Landing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 And before you do answer that question, remember that far more people are offended by "gay marriage" than are by "Redskins." There are far more homophobes than native peoples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Well you better get some schooling someplace. I can't believe this is even a question. It's literally ridiculous in terms of law. This goes to the SCOTUS, the USPTO loses in a 9-0 blowout. Period. It's a waste of time really. None of you arguing for USPTO's ability to vacate these trademarks....would get past traffic court with this argument. No government agency has the right to limit a Constitution freedom, based on anything, never mind a minority of a minority calling something offensive. I must have missed the part of the constitution that mentioned patents. Also, it's always splendid when a conversation about a football team on a message board becomes a referendum on all that is wrong with America including that pesky public education for all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 There are far more homophobes than native peoples. So? Is that supposed to be an argument that "gay marriage" is more offensive than "Redskins," because more are offended? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Ok. http://blogs.wsj.com...ive-trademarks/ The Lanham Act., the major piece of federal trademark law, forbids any trademark that: Consists of or comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute I specifically asked "show me where in THAT LAW" meaning the law you referenced in your wiki link above, that refers to the establishment of the USPTO. Now, you have a different law, the Lanham Act? Well, at least we've moved on from "government can regulate commerce"...to recognition that it actually requires a law from Congress, upheld by the Supreme Court, and signed by the Executive, which is progress, but.... ....which has quite literally NOTHING to do with this. As, it's intent is to protect the rights of "persons" living or dead from being included into something they didn't sign up for. Like me, digging up Ralph Wilson, taking a picture of him, and creating "Dead Ralph Craft Beer" and slapping his picture on it, and applying for a trademark. Persons absolutely means "private citizen", like Bob Smith. Persons does not mean "large group of people", like a bunch of pukes, who are so weak that they require constant external validation of their character, because it's not strong enough to self-validate, hence they move from thing to thing, calling it offensive, and then self-congratulating for being offended by thing du jour. Moroever, where is the contempt or disrepute? Naming an NFL team Redskins, is the opposite of contempt. You don't name your team "The Cheektowaga Douchebags", unless you want to make fun of the town. The Redskins aren't interested in disparaging Washington DC, nor are they interested in disparaging Native Americans. In fact, every single bit of behavior shows the polar opposite: their team name recognizes the power of the name, just like all of teams that were named around the same time: the Bears, Lions, Giants, etc. Thus, application of this law in this instance makes 0 sense. And if you can't PROVE intent to disparage Washington DC, or Native Americans? This is over. Again, I get why Redskins is a bad name. Again, the first time I said so was in 2nd grade. But, we can't just run around subverting the Constitution, or bastardizing laws, because we can't get our way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Is your argument that there are no regulations governing offensive material in the patenting process or that there are no regulations governing vacating a patent that subsequently is deemed offensive? The latter. A trademark has been issued. Due process alone requires....process. You can't just wake up one day, and decide something is offensive, which is what the USPTO did. Did they even have a hearing? There's an appeals process. What is being appealed? A decision made by whom, and what was that process? This is yet another example of what happens when a government becomes lawless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 They came to this same exact ruling in 1999, yet it was overturned on a techincality in 2003. What year is it now? They, USPTO, just didn't wake up and decide to overturn a trademark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts