Patent Office: Name Redskins Disparaging

[Olo]

That's a difference without a distinction. Let's apply this to some other IP, like the name "Batman." Now anybody can create a comic book, cartoon, video game or what-not and call their character "Batman." How is that not an attack on the private property of Warner Bros? The patent office is there to ensure exclusivity of IPs, among other things. If it can be revoked willy-nilly because a few people happen to think whomever has that IP shouldn't have it, for any reason, this throws everything into chaos.

The law has been in place for awhile now and the sky hasn't fallen yet.

[Hammerfest]

What property do you lose if I also make a character called batman? Lost potential profits are not property.

You lose the intellectual property. The name no longer belongs to you if it belongs to anyone and everyone.

[Wells]

Is not? Does that mean I can steal recipe for coke and sell it to china and govt wonT punish me for violating patent law?

I don't know how international law works with patents but Coke's patents are intact.

- - - Updated - - -

You lose the intellectual property. The name no longer belongs to you if it belongs to anyone and everyone.

Which is not a real thing, its not property. Its something we crafted to make patent laws work.

[Hammerfest]

Which is not a real thing, its not property. Its something we crafted to make patent laws work.

Does Blizzard own the name "WarCraft?"

[Wells]

Does Blizzard own the name "WarCraft?"

They own the trademark. Which is part of a system the government set up for the sake of businesses. They don't own the word.

[Hammerfest]

So I can make a comic book or write a book and slap the title "WarCraft" on it? I don't think I can. Not legally.

[Wells]

So I can make a comic book or write a book and slap the title "WarCraft" on it? I don't think I can.

Blizzard's trademarks are intact as they don't violate the law. I'm not sure what your point is.

[Gumboy]

They own the trademark. Which is part of a system the government set up for the sake of businesses. They don't own the word.

And what is happening here is the sports team is losing the trademark, meaning they are losing the merchandising rights essentially, in a move only there to force them to change the team name. Basically it is a "hostile takeover" of the teams name, by the government. Whether it is right or not is not even the point. I hate native american mascots and team names, I think they are lazy. My high school had a native name and logo, not sure what they do now.

[Wells]

They can still sell all stuff they want. The government just won't be protecting their profit margins.

[Hammerfest]

Blizzard's trademarks are intact as they don't violate the law. I'm not sure what your point is.

My point has already been stated. If I can't use the name "WarCraft" on my product, it's because that name belongs to Blizzard. The name "Washington Redskins" belonged to the NFL. Nobody could make merchandise with that name on it. It no longer can be said that the NFL owns that name because they've lost their trademark to that name... which means it's either public domain or someone else can trademark it. That name is what we call an "intellectual property." This means that the patent office has taken away something that belonged to the NFL. To me, what's important is not why they did it but that they did do it.

[Wells]

Names don't belong to anyone in this context. They're not property. They're trademarks, which is a legal system the government created for their benefit to make their efforts more profitable. The government does not have to do this, and I see no reason the government should reward racist trademarks with greater profitability.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

Batman, WarCraft, Pringles. Obviously I have the express permission of the entities that own these words.

[Themius]

And what is happening here is the sports team is losing the trademark, meaning they are losing the merchandising rights essentially, in a move only there to force them to change the team name. Basically it is a "hostile takeover" of the teams name, by the government. Whether it is right or not is not even the point. I hate native american mascots and team names, I think they are lazy. My high school had a native name and logo, not sure what they do now.

Hasn't every other football team with an offensive native american name changed their names already? Why the hell are they bitching about it?

[Hammerfest]

I guess if you're a socialist or some sort of anti-capitalist, you don't have a fundamental belief in intellectual property ownership rights. That's fine. If you do believe in capitalism and you think that what was done to the NFL was a good thing, just wait until it happens to something you do like. I don't particularly care for the name "Washington Redskins" either, but I think what was done here sets a very bad precedent for anyone who makes their living with IPs or who happens to enjoy products made with IPs.

[Themius]

I guess if you're a socialist or some sort of anti-capitalist, you don't have a fundamental belief in intellectual property ownership rights. That's fine. If you do believe in capitalism and you think that what was done to the NFL was a good thing, just wait until it happens to something you do like. I don't particularly care for the name "Washington Redskins" either, but I think what was done here sets a very bad precedent for anyone who makes their living with IPs or who happens to enjoy products made with IPs.

Wow you guys really are over reaching aren't you...

If a team has a name like "Washington rainbow faggots!" making them change it isn't a bad thing now is it? It's not some huge "no one will be safe any more!" situation. "Jigaboo bears!" gets sued and it's "oh no their IP!" Come on guys.... stop it.

[THE Bigzoman]

This is an issue thats been pushed hard now for the last several years... and in my eyes its bullshit. As someone with a large American Indian heritage, the name Redskin is not offensive to me. I dont believe it is offensive in general, it is history and heritage. Others may disagree about its "offensive" nature.... but fuck them.

The issue is divisive among native americans. Really, it's between them and the redskins organization.

Any other interference is white people with the audacity to speak for non whites. And i'm sure minorities; native americans specifically, have seen enough of others speaking FOR them.

[Wells]

I guess if you're a socialist or some sort of anti-capitalist, you don't have a fundamental belief in intellectual property ownership rights. That's fine. If you do believe in capitalism and you think that what was done to the NFL was a good thing, just wait until it happens to something you do like. I don't particularly care for the name "Washington Redskins" either, but I think what was done here sets a very bad precedent for anyone who makes their living with IPs or who happens to enjoy products made with IPs.

Trademarks are government intervention in the market. Don't give me this "MUH CAPITULISMS" bullshit.

[THE Bigzoman]

"In its 2-1 ruling issued on Wednesday, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, an independent tribunal within the USPTO, wrote that it was charged with determining only whether the trademark was offensive to the people it referenced, not the entire U.S. population. Five Native Americans, representing four tribes, brought the case against the league in 2006."

OMG. 4 whole tribes out of the 566 native american tribes currently recognized by the federal government.

[Sky High]

well it's racist. so, that might be why people are offended.

[Wells]

OMG. 4 whole tribes out of the 566 native american tribes currently recognized by the federal government.

Is this some sort of inverse appeal to popularity?