Scrabble scandal

[LFS]

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/entertainment/2012/08/inside-scrabbles-cheating-scandal-then-his-hands-went-below-table/55815/

I wonder what our fondly remembered Graeme would have thought?

--
Laura (emulate St George for email)

[tony cooper]

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 23:07:05 +0100, LFS
<la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote:

>http://www.theatlanticwire.com/entertainment/2012/08/inside-scrabbles-cheating-scandal-then-his-hands-went-below-table/55815/
>
>I wonder what our fondly remembered Graeme would have thought?

Drifting a bit...one of my goals in photography is to take photographs
of as many sports that I can. I'm not a sports photographer, but I
like to shoot at least a couple of representative photos of each
sport.

There was a scrabble tournament in a local hotel last week. Indoor
sports often have restrictions, so I called ahead. I was told that
only authorized representatives of the press could bring in a camera.

I could probably get away with a phone camera, or my pocket point and
shoot, but if I can't shoot with my dslr I won't bother. I didn't go.

The question is, though, "Is scrabble a sport?".




--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

[Harrison Hill]

On Aug 16, 2:02 am, tony cooper <tony.cooper...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 23:07:05 +0100, LFS
>
> <la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote:

> >http://www.theatlanticwire.com/entertainment/2012/08/inside-scrabbles...

>
> >I wonder what our fondly remembered Graeme would have thought?
>
> Drifting a bit...one of my goals in photography is to take photographs
> of as many sports that I can.  I'm not a sports photographer, but I
> like to shoot at least a couple of representative photos of each
> sport.
>
> There was a scrabble tournament in a local hotel last week.  Indoor
> sports often have restrictions, so I called ahead.  I was told that
> only authorized representatives of the press could bring in a camera.
>
> I could probably get away with a phone camera, or my pocket point and
> shoot, but if I can't shoot with my dslr I won't bother.  I didn't go.
>
> The question is, though, "Is scrabble a sport?".

No it is a "board game". Sports require physical dexterity so darts
and snooker are sports IMO.

[Guy Barry]

"tony cooper" wrote in message
news:vaho28ltk3q25au5k...@4ax.com...

> The question is, though, "Is scrabble a sport?".

"Scrabble" is a registered trademark (of Hasbro, Inc, in the US and Canada;
elsewhere of Mattel). It is the name of a proprietary game, and should
always be spelt with a capital letter, like "Monopoly".

"Sport" to me implies some sort of athletic activity, though I have heard
chess described as a "sport", usually by people who are trying to get
funding for it.

--
Guy Barry

[fabzorba]

> and snooker are sports IMO.-

Yes, so chess is not a sport, coz you could just as well do it by
correspondence (Rem "correspondence chess"? - that seems like a
hundred years ago) All sports are games, but not all games are sports.
Where strength, dexterity, timing, and other physical skills are not
required, then the game is not one which athletes take part it. Oh,
sorry, I'll have Don and others right on my case here, I'll rephrase
that: "..is not one which athletes take part in, qua athletes,
although they may participate in said games after work, or when
retired, or for a change or suchlike". Happy?

myles [correspondence chess, with my "Pen Pal", no less!] paulsen

[GordonD]

"fabzorba" <myles....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c30990e4-9966-485a...@wm7g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

***************

Depends on your definition of the word 'athletes'. To me, an athlete is
somebody who runs or jumps or throws things - i.e. things under the heading
'athletics'. People who take part in team sports involving a ball or similar
object are sportsmen*, not athletes.

*Or women - and I immediately recognise that 'athletes' is
non-gender-specific but I don't see that as a reason to use it instead.
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland

"Slipped the surly bonds of Earth...to touch the face of God."

[GordonD]

"LFS" <la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a92kro...@mid.individual.net...

> http://www.theatlanticwire.com/entertainment/2012/08/inside-scrabbles-cheating-scandal-then-his-hands-went-below-table/55815/
>
> I wonder what our fondly remembered Graeme would have thought?

A few years ago I saw one of those US forensic procedurals in which the
victim had been cheating at a Scrabble tournament (though they didn't call
it that; as Guy Barry has pointed out elsewhere in this thread it's a
registered trademark so presumably the show would have had to pay a fee to
use it) - he had played a word which nobody had heard of but which went
unchallenged. His opponent then played a word which added an 'S' to the end
of the other one - and the victim promptly challenged it. It turned out that
his word didn't exist either!

Nothing in the rules against it but his body was found with certain letter
tiles rammed down his throat. Seems to me that the youngster in the news
article got away lightly...

[Evan Kirshenbaum]

fabzorba <myles....@gmail.com> writes:

> On Aug 16, 5:45�pm, Harrison Hill <harrisonhill2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 16, 2:02�am, tony cooper <tony.cooper...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > The question is, though, "Is scrabble a sport?".
>>
>> No it is a "board game". Sports require physical dexterity so darts
>> and snooker are sports IMO.-
>
> Yes, so chess is not a sport, coz you could just as well do it by
> correspondence (Rem "correspondence chess"? - that seems like a
> hundred years ago)

The closest rule I've been able to come up with to distinguish between
sports and games is that if you would play equally well by proxy
(i.e., telling somebody else what moves to play based on the
information available to them) it's a game, but not a sport.
Unfortunately, that includes as sports some card games that have a
"get to the pile first" aspect to them (e.g., double solitaire, spit
(aka "speed")).

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |We never met anyone who believed in
SF Bay Area (1982-) |fortune cookies. That's astounding.
Chicago (1964-1982) |Belief in the precognitive powers
|of an Asian pastry is really no
evan.kir...@gmail.com |wackier than belief in ESP,
|subluxation, or astrology, but you
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ |just don't hear anyone preaching
|Scientific Cookie-ism.
| Penn and Teller

[Jerry Friedman]

On Aug 16, 9:41 am, Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kirshenb...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> fabzorba <myles.abzo...@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Aug 16, 5:45 pm, Harrison Hill <harrisonhill2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Aug 16, 2:02 am, tony cooper <tony.cooper...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > The question is, though, "Is scrabble a sport?".
>
> >> No it is a "board game". Sports require physical dexterity so darts
> >> and snooker are sports IMO.-

Running races? Weightlifting?

> > Yes, so chess is not a sport, coz you could just as well do it by
> > correspondence (Rem "correspondence chess"? - that seems like a
> > hundred years ago)
>
> The closest rule I've been able to come up with to distinguish between
> sports and games is that if you would play equally well by proxy
> (i.e., telling somebody else what moves to play based on the
> information available to them) it's a game, but not a sport.
> Unfortunately, that includes as sports some card games that have a
> "get to the pile first" aspect to them (e.g., double solitaire, spit
> (aka "speed")).

...

Also tiddlywinks, jacks, jackstraws or pickup sticks (see earlier
thread), quarters (bouncing a quarter into a beer glass as a drinking
game), and other games that I wouldn't call sports, though maybe some
would.

Then there's bodybuilding.

--
Jerry Friedman

[James Silverton]

Even the older universities are a bit confused. I believe you can get a
"Blue" (US "Letter") in Chess at Oxford.

--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not" in Reply To.

[Jerry Friedman]

On Aug 16, 2:47 am, "GordonD" <g.da...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> "fabzorba" <myles.abzo...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>
> news:c30990e4-9966-485a...@wm7g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 16, 5:45 pm, Harrison Hill <harrisonhill2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 16, 2:02 am, tony cooper <tony.cooper...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 23:07:05 +0100, LFS
>
> > > <la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote:
> > > >http://www.theatlanticwire.com/entertainment/2012/08/inside-scrabbles...
>
> > > >I wonder what our fondly remembered Graeme would have thought?
>
> > > Drifting a bit...one of my goals in photography is to take photographs
> > > of as many sports that I can. I'm not a sports photographer, but I
> > > like to shoot at least a couple of representative photos of each
> > > sport.
>
> > > There was a scrabble tournament in a local hotel last week. Indoor
> > > sports often have restrictions, so I called ahead. I was told that
> > > only authorized representatives of the press could bring in a camera.
>
> > > I could probably get away with a phone camera, or my pocket point and
> > > shoot, but if I can't shoot with my dslr I won't bother. I didn't go.
>
> > > The question is, though, "Is scrabble a sport?".
>
> > No it is a "board game". Sports require physical dexterity so darts
> > and snooker are sports IMO.-
>
> Yes, so chess is not a sport, coz you could just as well do it by
> correspondence (Rem "correspondence chess"? - that seems like a
> hundred years ago)

It still exists, and if I'm not mistaken, you're not allowed to use
computers. Speaking of cheating.

> All sports are games, but not all games are sports.
> Where strength, dexterity, timing, and other physical skills are not
> required, then the game is not one which athletes take part it. Oh,
> sorry, I'll have Don and others right on my case here, I'll  rephrase
> that: "..is not one which athletes take part in, qua athletes,
> although they may participate in said games after work, or when
> retired, or for a change or suchlike". Happy?
>
> ***************
>
> Depends on your definition of the word 'athletes'. To me, an athlete is
> somebody who runs or jumps or throws things - i.e. things under the heading
> 'athletics'. People who take part in team sports involving a ball or similar
> object are sportsmen*, not athletes.
>
> *Or women - and I immediately recognise that 'athletes' is
> non-gender-specific but I don't see that as a reason to use it instead.

That's a difference between American and British usage. In American
English, people who play football (of any type), baseball, basketball,
tennis, etc., are called athletes, and those sports are part of what's
called athletics. Your athletics is our track and field. I don't
know about Australian English.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Robert Bannister]

Perhaps you have hit on the new definition of "sport" - an athletic
business that has funding or sponsorship or both.

--
Robert Bannister

[Steve Hayes]

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 09:32:16 +0800, Robert Bannister <rob...@bigpond.com>
wrote:

>> "Sport" to me implies some sort of athletic activity, though I have
>> heard chess described as a "sport", usually by people who are trying to
>> get funding for it.
>>
>
>Perhaps you have hit on the new definition of "sport" - an athletic
>business that has funding or sponsorship or both.

Interesting how much it has changed. In the 19th century "sport" meant killing
animals for fun (ie when you had no need to eat or intention of eating them).


--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[Mike L]

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 21:02:26 -0400, tony cooper
<tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]

>
>The question is, though, "Is scrabble a sport?".
>

If synchro swimming, rhythmic gym, and other vaudeville turns are
considered sports, then why not Scrabble? Battue-shooting,
pigeon-racing, and angling are sports, too: I don't think physical
exertion is either a necessary or a sufficient condition for
distinguishing sports from pastimes.

--
Mike.

[John Holmes]

Jerry Friedman wrote:
>
> That's a difference between American and British usage. In American
> English, people who play football (of any type), baseball, basketball,
> tennis, etc., are called athletes, and those sports are part of what's
> called athletics. Your athletics is our track and field. I don't
> know about Australian English.

My sense of Australian usage is that "athletics" always means track and
field, but players of other sports can still be called athletes or described
as athletic.

--
Regards
John
for mail: my initials plus a u e
at tpg dot com dot au

[Evan Kirshenbaum]

Pigeons don't exert themselves when they race?

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |This isn't good. I've seen good,
SF Bay Area (1982-) |and it didn't look anything like
Chicago (1964-1982) |this.
| MST3K
evan.kir...@gmail.com

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

[Mike L]

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 07:53:42 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
<evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>
>> On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 21:02:26 -0400, tony cooper
>> <tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>>>
>>>The question is, though, "Is scrabble a sport?".
>>>
>> If synchro swimming, rhythmic gym, and other vaudeville turns are
>> considered sports, then why not Scrabble? Battue-shooting,
>> pigeon-racing, and angling are sports, too: I don't think physical
>> exertion is either a necessary or a sufficient condition for
>> distinguishing sports from pastimes.
>
>Pigeons don't exert themselves when they race?

If the fancier uses the system which separates permanently-mated
pairs, they exert themselves like hell to get back. There's a
refinement in which two cocks are encouraged to become rivals for the
claw of a single hen. Though this nastiness can induce even greater
efforts, I'm glad to say it doesn't always work to the owner's
advantage, as sometimes the rivals arrive back at the loft at the same
time, and instead of dutifully punching the clock, they stay on the
roof and punch the living daylights out of each other.

--
Mike.

[Robert Bannister]

On 17/08/12 12:40 PM, Steve Hayes wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 09:32:16 +0800, Robert Bannister <rob...@bigpond.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> "Sport" to me implies some sort of athletic activity, though I have
>>> heard chess described as a "sport", usually by people who are trying to
>>> get funding for it.
>>>
>>
>> Perhaps you have hit on the new definition of "sport" - an athletic
>> business that has funding or sponsorship or both.
>
> Interesting how much it has changed. In the 19th century "sport" meant killing
> animals for fun (ie when you had no need to eat or intention of eating them).

Although it gave a different meaning to interior decoration.


--
Robert Bannister

[Robert Bannister]

Why on earth don't they use the same system to encourage the human
Olympic athletes? You should become a coach.

--
Robert Bannister

[abc]

Guy Barry wrote:
>
> "tony cooper" wrote in message
> news:vaho28ltk3q25au5k...@4ax.com...
>
>> The question is, though, "Is scrabble a sport?".
>
> "Scrabble" is a registered trademark (of Hasbro, Inc, in the US and
> Canada; elsewhere of Mattel). It is the name of a proprietary game, and
> should always be spelt with a capital letter, like "Monopoly".

Don't forget that it should be followed by the registered trademark
symbol in superscript.

Sparking an new discussion on the subject of trademarks that become
household names, even verbs: hoover ...

Any reason to bother with trademark rules when they do?

abc

[Guy Barry]

"abc" wrote in message news:k0n6o2$6c8$1...@news.albasani.net...

> Guy Barry wrote:

> > "Scrabble" is a registered trademark (of Hasbro, Inc, in the US and
> > Canada; elsewhere of Mattel). It is the name of a proprietary game, and
> > should always be spelt with a capital letter, like "Monopoly".

> Don't forget that it should be followed by the registered trademark symbol
> in superscript.

Is that always the case? I thought it was only used in contexts where there
might be some legal dispute.

> Sparking an new discussion on the subject of trademarks that become
> household names, even verbs: hoover ...

> Any reason to bother with trademark rules when they do?

My understanding is that verbs in English are never capitalized, e.g "I
googled the phrase", and that trademark rules don't apply to verbs. I seem
to remember that a few years ago Google instructed its employees to talk
about "performing a Google search" instead of "googling" in order to protect
its trademark rights. I don't think you can trademark a verb.

--
Guy Barry

abc

[R H Draney]

Guy Barry filted:

>
>My understanding is that verbs in English are never capitalized, e.g "I
>googled the phrase", and that trademark rules don't apply to verbs. I seem
>to remember that a few years ago Google instructed its employees to talk
>about "performing a Google search" instead of "googling" in order to protect
>its trademark rights. I don't think you can trademark a verb.

It's my understanding that all trademarks are by definition attributive nouns,
so you can speak informally of "Xeroxing an article" or refer to "a handful of
Kleenexes", but the associated trademarks cannot be verbed (let alone gerunded)
or made plural; one must speak of "wearing Rollerblade (TM) in-line skates"....r


--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.

[Paul Wolff]

In message <k0n6o2$6c8$1...@news.albasani.net>, abc <a...@abc.net> writes

>Guy Barry wrote:
>>
>> "tony cooper" wrote in message
>> news:vaho28ltk3q25au5k...@4ax.com...
>>
>>> The question is, though, "Is scrabble a sport?".
>>
>> "Scrabble" is a registered trademark (of Hasbro, Inc, in the US and
>> Canada; elsewhere of Mattel). It is the name of a proprietary game, and
>> should always be spelt with a capital letter, like "Monopoly".
>
>Don't forget that it should be followed by the registered trademark
>symbol in superscript.

That's what corporate lawyers tell their marketing departments, anyway.

>
>Sparking an new discussion on the subject of trademarks that become
>household names, even verbs: hoover ...
>
>Any reason to bother with trademark rules when they do?

Just remember who the rules are made by, and who they are made for.
--
Paul

[Paul Wolff]

In message <k0nlt...@drn.newsguy.com>, R H Draney
<dado...@spamcop.net> writes

>Guy Barry filted:
>>
>>My understanding is that verbs in English are never capitalized, e.g "I
>>googled the phrase", and that trademark rules don't apply to verbs. I seem
>>to remember that a few years ago Google instructed its employees to talk
>>about "performing a Google search" instead of "googling" in order to protect
>>its trademark rights. I don't think you can trademark a verb.
>
>It's my understanding that all trademarks are by definition attributive nouns,

The European definition of a trademark states that it's a sign. It's a
sign that is used to, er, signify that a product has a provenance that
can be traced back to the owner of the tm, though that might be through
a licensing deal or other arrangement. The legal definition says nothing
out what part of speech a tm might be, if it is a word tm, and isn't
interested in that question. Design tms (the Shell shell, for example)
couldn't be subject to such rules, so the law wisely doesn't attempt to
make them.

The US definition says a tm can be any word, name, symbol or device, or
combination thereof, used to identify and distinguish goods and services
from those of others.

The distinction between what the trademark actually is, and what it is
called, seems to be crucial. In the case of a plain word mark, there may
be no distinction between the two, but often there is one. It's hard to
verb a symbol.

>so you can speak informally of "Xeroxing an article" or refer to "a handful of
>Kleenexes", but the associated trademarks cannot be verbed (let alone gerunded)
>or made plural; one must speak of "wearing Rollerblade (TM) in-line
>skates"....r

"Can", "cannot" and "must" don't apply to us, if we're not in commerce.
It's a hot day today. If I wish to buy two Cornettos, I shall.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/9328428/Just-One-Cornetto-v
oted-catchiest-jingle-of-all-time.html

http://preview.tinyurl.com/d62x9tj

--
Paul

[GordonD]

"Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:j5GXr.869563$v24.2...@fx11.am4...

Something similar happened with Photoshop.

[Paul Wolff]

In message <j5GXr.869563$v24.2...@fx11.am4>, Guy Barry
<guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> writes

>
>
>"abc" wrote in message news:k0n6o2$6c8$1...@news.albasani.net...
>
>> Guy Barry wrote:
>
>> > "Scrabble" is a registered trademark (of Hasbro, Inc, in the US and
>> > Canada; elsewhere of Mattel). It is the name of a proprietary game, and
>> > should always be spelt with a capital letter, like "Monopoly".
>
>> Don't forget that it should be followed by the registered trademark
>>symbol in superscript.
>
>Is that always the case? I thought it was only used in contexts where
>there might be some legal dispute.
>
>> Sparking an new discussion on the subject of trademarks that become
>>household names, even verbs: hoover ...
>
>> Any reason to bother with trademark rules when they do?
>
>My understanding is that verbs in English are never capitalized, e.g "I
>googled the phrase", and that trademark rules don't apply to verbs.

Trademark rules don't apply to English as such; they apply to legal
situations.

>I seem to remember that a few years ago Google instructed its employees
>to talk about "performing a Google search" instead of "googling" in
>order to protect its trademark rights. I don't think you can trademark
>a verb.

A verb can be a trademark.

I thought to dig out a few. "Go" is a common verb. The UKIPO
(Intellectual Property Office) has plenty of "Go" marks on record,
including:

Go
Paint and Go
Go create
Wash and go
(at which early point I realised the futility of what I was doing).
There are hundreds, possibly thousands (the system stops reporting hits
after 500).

There are 103 hits on searching for an exact match for "go", but most
have strong graphics. The obvious reason for that is to differentiate
the marks from one another.

Back to the thread subject, "scrabble" is a verb.

--
Paul

[Guy Barry]

"Paul Wolff" wrote in message news:WX5ov0Qe...@fpwolff.demon.co.uk...

> In message <j5GXr.869563$v24.2...@fx11.am4>, Guy Barry
> <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> writes

> >I seem to remember that a few years ago Google instructed its employees
> >to talk about "performing a Google search" instead of "googling" in order
> >to protect its trademark rights. I don't think you can trademark a verb.

> A verb can be a trademark.

> I thought to dig out a few. "Go" is a common verb. The UKIPO (Intellectual
> Property Office) has plenty of "Go" marks on record, including:

> Go
> Paint and Go
> Go create
> Wash and go

Those are all names of products, though. You can't trademark the verb "to
go".

> There are 103 hits on searching for an exact match for "go", but most have
> strong graphics. The obvious reason for that is to differentiate the marks
> from one another.

I think you misunderstood what I meant. I wasn't suggesting that you can't
trademark a word that has an alternative use as a verb. I was saying that
you can't trademark the verb itself.

> Back to the thread subject, "scrabble" is a verb.

Indeed, and neither Hasbro nor Mattel has any rights over it. The rights
only extend to the name of the game "Scrabble".

--
Guy Barry

[tony cooper]

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 16:47:32 +0100, "GordonD" <g.d...@btinternet.com>
wrote:

With equal success. Adobe would like to see the word "Photoshopped"
disappear from use. You can google it.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

[GordonD]

"Lewis" <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote in message
news:slrnk2vgqs....@mbp55.local...
> In message <k0nlt...@drn.newsguy.com>

> In my use and those around me, xerox was a completely generic term akin
> to the BrE hoover up to the early 2000s. "I'm going to xerox these." "I
> spent all day xeroxing." "Yes, I xeroxed the papers." and it made no
> difference that the machine we used to do all our xeroxing was a Ricoh.
>
> But then xeroxing became a lot less common and we were printing things
> or email things, and so we stopped using the word as much.
>
> Kleenex is completely generic in our household. I have no idea what
> brand of kleenex we have, or if it varies, but they are all called
> kleenex.


It's the same with Sellotape.

[Paul Wolff]

In message <wIPXr.1562194$%k.97...@fx20.am4>, Guy Barry

>"Paul Wolff" wrote in message news:WX5ov0Qe...@fpwolff.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <j5GXr.869563$v24.2...@fx11.am4>, Guy Barry

>> >I seem to remember that a few years ago Google instructed its
>> >employees to talk about "performing a Google search" instead of
>> >"googling" in order to protect its trademark rights. I don't think
>> >you can trademark a verb.
>
>> A verb can be a trademark.
>
>> I thought to dig out a few. "Go" is a common verb. The UKIPO
>>(Intellectual Property Office) has plenty of "Go" marks on record,
>>including:
>
>> Go
>> Paint and Go
>> Go create
>> Wash and go
>
>Those are all names of products, though. You can't trademark the verb
>"to go".

You can have the phrase "to go" as your trademark, if it's presented in
a distinctive way. See:

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ohim?ohimnum=E10101491

(European Community trade mark 10101491)

>
>> There are 103 hits on searching for an exact match for "go", but most
>>have strong graphics. The obvious reason for that is to differentiate
>>the marks from one another.
>
>I think you misunderstood what I meant. I wasn't suggesting that you
>can't trademark a word that has an alternative use as a verb. I was
>saying that you can't trademark the verb itself.

I probably do misunderstand. I do that a lot, but usually for good
reasons. When you say you can't trademark a verb, I don't see meaning
there. A trademark is a sign (think 'brand' if that helps) and a verb is
a part of speech. You can use a verb as a trademark, and you can use a
trademark as a verb (to hoover, to xerox), much as it upsets the tm
owners; but perhaps I don't get what you mean by the verb "to
trademark". All I can think is that you mean use a word which is
normally a verb as a trademark, or register a word which is normally a
verb as a trademark, and you can do both those things. You might, just
possibly, mean "claim exclusive use of all forms of the verb in commerce
as importing a reference to your own commercial interests" and if that's
what you mean then you are correct, but that isn't how trademarks work,
so to call that "trademarking" doesn't make sense to me. There's no
mechanism for giving anyone such rights because trademarks are
particular signs, not generic concepts.

Actually you can argue that I'm wrong on that, because John Deere have a
tm for the colour green applied to a tractor body in combination with
yellow applied to its wheels. But that squeezed in as a sign rather than
a concept.

--
Paul

[Mike L]

Never trained a pigeon in me life, and I believe athletic coaches are
pretty cruel already. I once stupidly tried to keep a few white
fantails for decoration, but the peregrines got them, of course.

--
Mike.

[Evan Kirshenbaum]

tony cooper <tony.co...@gmail.com> writes:

> On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 16:47:32 +0100, "GordonD" <g.d...@btinternet.com>
> wrote:
>
>>"Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:j5GXr.869563$v24.2...@fx11.am4...
>>>

>>>> Any reason to bother with trademark rules when they do?
>>>
>>> My understanding is that verbs in English are never capitalized,
>>> e.g "I googled the phrase", and that trademark rules don't apply
>>> to verbs. I seem to remember that a few years ago Google
>>> instructed its employees to talk about "performing a Google
>>> search" instead of "googling" in order to protect its trademark
>>> rights. I don't think you can trademark a verb.
>>
>>Something similar happened with Photoshop.
>
> With equal success. Adobe would like to see the word "Photoshopped"
> disappear from use. You can google it.

Xerox was more successful. Few people talk about xeroxing things
anymore. Of course, that's largely because they're no longer seen as
the market leader, which is probably not what they intended.

I'm sure Adobe loves the fact that people use "photoshop" as a verb.
They are legally required to be officially outraged and to ask people
to stop, but as long as they are unsuccessful in persuading potential
customers, they get seen as the "real" system, and the ones who are
actually prevented from using the term are their competitors.

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |"You can't prove it *isn't* so!" is
SF Bay Area (1982-) |as good as Q.E.D. in folk logic--as
Chicago (1964-1982) |though it were necessary to submit
|a piece of the moon to chemical
evan.kir...@gmail.com |analysis before you could be sure
|that it was not made of green
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ |cheese.
| Bergen Evans

[j...@arcade.demon.co.uk]

Guy Barry wrote:
> "Sport" to me implies some sort of athletic activity, though I have heard
> chess described as a "sport", usually by people who are trying to get
> funding for it.

Going by Olympic competitions, Town Planning, Poetry and Singing are sports ;)

JGH

[j...@arcade.demon.co.uk]

Lewis wrote:
> In my use and those around me, xerox was a completely generic term akin
> to the BrE hoover up to the early 2000s. "I'm going to xerox these."

I was "photocopying" for 20+ years before I ever heard the word "Xerox".

And I use a Mercedes to clean my carpet, a Philips to keep my food cool,
and a Hotpoint to wash my laundry. I won't let a Hoover in the house,
they're overpriced rubbish.

JGH

[tony cooper]

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 14:45:42 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
<evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:


>> With equal success. Adobe would like to see the word "Photoshopped"
>> disappear from use. You can google it.
>
>Xerox was more successful. Few people talk about xeroxing things
>anymore.

A few of them must be in my hearing.

>Of course, that's largely because they're no longer seen as
>the market leader, which is probably not what they intended.
>
>I'm sure Adobe loves the fact that people use "photoshop" as a verb.
>They are legally required to be officially outraged and to ask people
>to stop, but as long as they are unsuccessful in persuading potential
>customers, they get seen as the "real" system, and the ones who are
>actually prevented from using the term are their competitors.

--

[Robert Bannister]

On 19/08/12 12:31 AM, Lewis wrote:

> In my use and those around me, xerox was a completely generic term akin
> to the BrE hoover up to the early 2000s. "I'm going to xerox these." "I

> spent all day xeroxing." "Yes, I xeroxed the papers." and it made no
> difference that the machine we used to do all our xeroxing was a Ricoh.

I remember "xerox", but we never had one until we got a photocopier,
which was boringly called just that. I did, however, do a lot "roneoing".


--
Robert Bannister

[Steve Hayes]

On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 07:21:04 +0800, Robert Bannister <rob...@bigpond.com>
wrote:

Even with a Gestetner?

[Guy Barry]

"Paul Wolff" wrote in message news:MkbeD0WV...@fpwolff.demon.co.uk...

> I probably do misunderstand. I do that a lot, but usually for good
> reasons. When you say you can't trademark a verb, I don't see meaning
> there.

I mean that you can't claim exclusive rights over the use of a verb.

> A trademark is a sign (think 'brand' if that helps) and a verb is a part
> of speech. You can use a verb as a trademark, and you can use a trademark
> as a verb (to hoover, to xerox), much as it upsets the tm owners;

Indeed, and the owners of the trademark "Hoover" can't claim exclusive
rights over the verb "to hoover". That's what I meant.

> but perhaps I don't get what you mean by the verb "to trademark". All I
> can think is that you mean use a word which is normally a verb as a
> trademark, or register a word which is normally a verb as a trademark, and
> you can do both those things.

You've already demonstrated that, and I've already told you that's not what
I meant.

> You might, just possibly, mean "claim exclusive use of all forms of the
> verb in commerce as importing a reference to your own commercial
> interests" and if that's what you mean then you are correct,

Yes, that's what I did mean.

> but that isn't how trademarks work, so to call that "trademarking" doesn't
> make sense to me. There's no mechanism for giving anyone such rights
> because trademarks are particular signs, not generic concepts.

Indeed. Which is why I said "you can't trademark a verb". The concept
doesn't make sense.

We seem to be in complete agreement here; it just seems to be a semantic
confusion.

--
Guy Barry

[GordonD]

"tony cooper" <tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:lf7038lh1bfnrjfr8...@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 14:45:42 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
> <evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> With equal success. Adobe would like to see the word "Photoshopped"
>>> disappear from use. You can google it.
>>
>>Xerox was more successful. Few people talk about xeroxing things
>>anymore.
>
> A few of them must be in my hearing.

I don't think I've ever heard anybody use the term. It's always been "to
photocopy" or just "copy".

[GordonD]

"Robert Bannister" <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:a9amb0...@mid.individual.net...

Did you ever use a Banda?

[tony cooper]

On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 16:01:59 +0100, "GordonD" <g.d...@btinternet.com>
wrote:

>"tony cooper" <tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:lf7038lh1bfnrjfr8...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 14:45:42 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
>> <evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> With equal success. Adobe would like to see the word "Photoshopped"
>>>> disappear from use. You can google it.
>>>
>>>Xerox was more successful. Few people talk about xeroxing things
>>>anymore.
>>
>> A few of them must be in my hearing.
>
>
>I don't think I've ever heard anybody use the term. It's always been "to
>photocopy" or just "copy".

I can't remember the first machine I saw that made copies of
documents, but when I got out of college and started working, the
Xerox copy machine was the big deal. No more smudged carbon copies.
No more of the brown, brittle, wet-copier duplicates. No more cutting
stencils or mimeographs or other forms of duplicating.

It was natural to refer to it as "Xeroxing" because it meant a better
copy, a simpler copying procedure, and a means to make a copy that
anyone could do.

That distinction hung on for many of us. Even when competing brands
of dry copiers came on the market, "xeroxing" meant "make a good copy"
even if you did it with a different brand of machine.

The Xerox repairman was the antithesis of the Maytag repairman. The
Xerox repairman, in a shirt and tie, was in the office every week to
keep this magnificent machine in working order and loading with gray
powder.

In cartoons, the office staff gathers around a water cooler. In real
office life, the gathering was at the Xerox machine chatting in line
as someone cleared a paper jam or fed single sheets in for copies.

I wonder, if you'd tell someone under 50 that we were able to make dry
copies with a Xerox machine if they'd have any idea what we meant.

I can make copies of documents with my printer, but if I want a large
number of copies of something, I take it to Office Depot. I have no
doubt that even a teenager working there would have no problem with me
instructing her to make "25 xeroxes" of the document.

[Paul Wolff]

In message <e3_Xr.1585731$%k.54...@fx20.am4>, Guy Barry
<guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> writes
>

>We seem to be in complete agreement here; it just seems to be a
>semantic confusion.

Excellent. And semantic confusion is entirely on topic in this
newsgroup.
--
Paul

[Evan Kirshenbaum]

tony cooper <tony.co...@gmail.com> writes:

> I wonder, if you'd tell someone under 50 that we were able to make dry
> copies with a Xerox machine if they'd have any idea what we meant.

Yeah, but just barely. They were xerox machines for me and we xeroxed
things and made xeroxes, even if another manufacturer's equipment was
used. And I did use mimeograph machines and carbon paper, but I never
actually used a wet copier.

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |You cannot solve problems with the
SF Bay Area (1982-) |same type of thinking that created
Chicago (1964-1982) |them.
| Albert Einstein
evan.kir...@gmail.com

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

[Robert Bannister]

On 19/08/12 9:13 AM, Steve Hayes wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 07:21:04 +0800, Robert Bannister <rob...@bigpond.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 19/08/12 12:31 AM, Lewis wrote:
>>
>>> In my use and those around me, xerox was a completely generic term akin
>>> to the BrE hoover up to the early 2000s. "I'm going to xerox these." "I
>>> spent all day xeroxing." "Yes, I xeroxed the papers." and it made no
>>> difference that the machine we used to do all our xeroxing was a Ricoh.
>>
>> I remember "xerox", but we never had one until we got a photocopier,
>> which was boringly called just that. I did, however, do a lot "roneoing".
>
> Even with a Gestetner?

Good question. I think we might have done, mainly because "gestetnering"
is a bit of a mouthful, although I am quite sure we used that too.


--
Robert Bannister

[Robert Bannister]

On 19/08/12 11:02 PM, GordonD wrote:
> "Robert Bannister" <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:a9amb0...@mid.individual.net...
>> On 19/08/12 12:31 AM, Lewis wrote:
>>
>>> In my use and those around me, xerox was a completely generic term akin
>>> to the BrE hoover up to the early 2000s. "I'm going to xerox these." "I
>>> spent all day xeroxing." "Yes, I xeroxed the papers." and it made no
>>> difference that the machine we used to do all our xeroxing was a Ricoh.
>>
>> I remember "xerox", but we never had one until we got a photocopier,
>> which was boringly called just that. I did, however, do a lot "roneoing".
>
>
> Did you ever use a Banda?

Shudder. Yes, but I am trying to forget. My fingers are no longer purple.

--
Robert Bannister

[Garrett Wollman]

In article <obm6v9...@gmail.com>,

Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Yeah, but just barely. They were xerox machines for me and we xeroxed
>things and made xeroxes, even if another manufacturer's equipment was
>used. And I did use mimeograph machines and carbon paper, but I never
>actually used a wet copier.

My high school had a spirit duplicator; if teachers wanted proper
copies, I think they had to send the job out to a copy shop instead.
Wet-process copies were definitely gone for paper-to-paper copying by
the I recall ever doing them, but they lasted much longer for printing
from microfilm and microfiche. Many libraries had no budget for
replacing the old microform reader-printers and only stopped using
their wet-process devices when sales of the chemicals were
restricted. (These systems used a lot of nasty-smelling solvents.)

-GAWollman

--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993

[Garrett Wollman]

In article <MkbeD0WV...@fpwolff.demon.co.uk>,

Paul Wolff <pa...@two.wolff.co.uk> wrote:

>Actually you can argue that I'm wrong on that, because John Deere have a
>tm for the colour green applied to a tractor body in combination with
>yellow applied to its wheels. But that squeezed in as a sign rather than
>a concept.

Isn't that considered "trade dress"? Like brown for the UPS vehicles
and uniforms, or various professional sports teams' uniforms? I
suppose in the case of Deere they are actually selling the things with
those colors, as opposed to UPS which does not sell its brown delivery
trucks, but merely uses them to provide a service for which they are
distinctive.

[Steve Hayes]

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 09:02:09 +0800, Robert Bannister <rob...@bigpond.com>

wrote:

>On 19/08/12 9:13 AM, Steve Hayes wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 07:21:04 +0800, Robert Bannister <rob...@bigpond.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 19/08/12 12:31 AM, Lewis wrote:
>>>
>>>> In my use and those around me, xerox was a completely generic term akin
>>>> to the BrE hoover up to the early 2000s. "I'm going to xerox these." "I
>>>> spent all day xeroxing." "Yes, I xeroxed the papers." and it made no
>>>> difference that the machine we used to do all our xeroxing was a Ricoh.
>>>
>>> I remember "xerox", but we never had one until we got a photocopier,
>>> which was boringly called just that. I did, however, do a lot "roneoing".
>>
>> Even with a Gestetner?
>
>Good question. I think we might have done, mainly because "gestetnering"
>is a bit of a mouthful, although I am quite sure we used that too.

I remember buying third-party stencils that would fit both.

[LFS]

On 19/08/2012 22:50, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
> tony cooper <tony.co...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> I wonder, if you'd tell someone under 50 that we were able to make dry
>> copies with a Xerox machine if they'd have any idea what we meant.
>
> Yeah, but just barely. They were xerox machines for me and we xeroxed
> things and made xeroxes, even if another manufacturer's equipment was
> used. And I did use mimeograph machines and carbon paper, but I never
> actually used a wet copier.
>

One of the tasks involved in my first ever job (in the accounts
department of the International Twist Drill Company in Sheffield) was to
clean out the wet copier and replace the evil-smelling chemicals. I
sometimes wonder if this did me any lasting damage.

Much of my early accountancy training a few years later involved copying
documents on a huge Xerox machine in the basement of a City office. This
seemed like a massive technological advance.

The photocopiers at work are now a mystery to me. They seem capable of
doing everything but the ironing and I have to get someone much younger
to do my photocopying.

--
Laura (emulate St George for email)

[LFS]

On 20/08/2012 07:53, Lewis wrote:
> In message <a9e2c4...@mid.individual.net>

> LFS <la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote:
>> The photocopiers at work are now a mystery to me. They seem capable of
>> doing everything but the ironing and I have to get someone much younger
>> to do my photocopying.
>

> I just drop a stack of papers on the top and press the copy button. that
> seems to work most of the time. Even works on my home printer.
>
> I try to look at the little picture to see if I should put them face up
> or face down.
>

I have to provide a password which I can never remember. I'm then asked
to make choices about paper size and orientation and all sorts of other
baffling things. And finding the copy button is itself a challenge.

--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)

[Iain Archer]

Lewis wrote on Mon, 20 Aug 2012
>In message <obm6v9...@gmail.com>

> Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> tony cooper <tony.co...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>> I wonder, if you'd tell someone under 50 that we were able to make dry
>>> copies with a Xerox machine if they'd have any idea what we meant.
>
>> Yeah, but just barely. They were xerox machines for me and we xeroxed
>> things and made xeroxes, even if another manufacturer's equipment was
>> used. And I did use mimeograph machines and carbon paper, but I never
>> actually used a wet copier.
>

>I kind of miss the smell of the toxic fumes from the mimeographs.
>
I don't know whether anyone's looked yet at the genetics of these
things. I'm not marked out to become a solvent abuser. I could get bad
headaches, even from the solvent in a marker pen being used in a room at
the other end of the corridor.
--
Iain Archer

[Cheryl]

On 2012-08-19 7:20 PM, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
> tony cooper <tony.co...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> I wonder, if you'd tell someone under 50 that we were able to make dry
>> copies with a Xerox machine if they'd have any idea what we meant.
>
> Yeah, but just barely. They were xerox machines for me and we xeroxed
> things and made xeroxes, even if another manufacturer's equipment was
> used. And I did use mimeograph machines and carbon paper, but I never
> actually used a wet copier.
>

I called it xeroxing until someone pointed out that the office one
wasn't a xerox machine. After that, I slid into using 'copy' or 'photocopy'.

I used several early copy machines. One was a giant map-copying machine
which didn't deal well if the legends needed a different exposure than
the main map. And I spent years using those thingys with alcohol in them
- you wrote or typed on 'stencils', fastened them to a barrel and you
were all set. Perhaps that's whay you mean by a wet copier? I've
forgotten the name; I don't think we had a special one.

--
Cheryl

[Cheryl]

There's a printshop we can send complicated or very large jobs to, but
even the shared office machine seems to suprise some people - it
staples? It can do double-sided? AND email?

Many, many years ago, my father was one of those in his office assigned
to listen to the salesman's pitch and decide if they really needed one
of those new machines. They decided to buy one, but at the time, it
didn't seem like the necessity that it has since become.

--
Cheryl

[the Omrud]

Banda:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banda_copier

"The duplicating fluid typically consisted of a toxic 50/50 mix of
isopropanol and methanol, both of which were inexpensive, readily
available in quantity, evaporated quickly, and would not wrinkle the paper."

It's a wonder we're all still alive, what with those, plus the mercury,
benzine etc, we handled at school.

--
David

[Cheryl]

I think we might have called them ditto machines or just copy machines.
It's been a while! That model looks a bit more advanced than the one I
remember, but it certainly sounds like the same process. I think we only
used blue ink ones, though the article says they came in other colours.

--
Cheryl

[Vinny Burgoo]

In alt.usage.english, the Omrud wrote:
>On 20/08/2012 11:20, Cheryl wrote:
>> On 2012-08-19 7:20 PM, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>>> tony cooper <tony.co...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> I wonder, if you'd tell someone under 50 that we were able to make dry
>>>> copies with a Xerox machine if they'd have any idea what we meant.
>>>
>>> Yeah, but just barely. They were xerox machines for me and we xeroxed
>>> things and made xeroxes, even if another manufacturer's equipment was
>>> used. And I did use mimeograph machines and carbon paper, but I never
>>> actually used a wet copier.
>>>
>> I called it xeroxing until someone pointed out that the office one
>> wasn't a xerox machine. After that, I slid into using 'copy' or
>> 'photocopy'.
>>
>> I used several early copy machines. One was a giant map-copying machine
>> which didn't deal well if the legends needed a different exposure than
>> the main map.

Was that a dyeline machine? Surprisingly, they're still available,
though the paper is insanely expensive.

>>And I spent years using those thingys with alcohol in them
>> - you wrote or typed on 'stencils', fastened them to a barrel and you
>> were all set. Perhaps that's whay you mean by a wet copier? I've
>> forgotten the name; I don't think we had a special one.
>
>Banda:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banda_copier
>
>"The duplicating fluid typically consisted of a toxic 50/50 mix of
>isopropanol and methanol, both of which were inexpensive, readily
>available in quantity, evaporated quickly, and would not wrinkle the
>paper."
>
>It's a wonder we're all still alive, what with those, plus the mercury,
>benzine etc, we handled at school.

And the ammonia fumes from dyelines.

--
VB

[Paul Wolff]

In message <k0s4gt$ij0$2...@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>, Garrett Wollman
<wol...@bimajority.org> writes

>In article <MkbeD0WV...@fpwolff.demon.co.uk>,
>Paul Wolff <pa...@two.wolff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Actually you can argue that I'm wrong on that, because John Deere have a
>>tm for the colour green applied to a tractor body in combination with
>>yellow applied to its wheels. But that squeezed in as a sign rather than
>>a concept.
>
>Isn't that considered "trade dress"? Like brown for the UPS vehicles
>and uniforms, or various professional sports teams' uniforms? I
>suppose in the case of Deere they are actually selling the things with
>those colors, as opposed to UPS which does not sell its brown delivery
>trucks, but merely uses them to provide a service for which they are
>distinctive.

I know of "trade dress" as a U.S. term but haven't ever got properly
into it (and no jokes about my wardrobe please) so I don't know exactly
by what legal mechanism it is protected in the U.S. It isn't a term used
in English law and there's no common EU provision for protecting it. The
different member states are free to protect it by their various unfair
competition laws, including passing-off in the UK, or by trademark
registration if it ticks the necessary boxes.

There's a brief commentary here on the John Deere trademark decision of
the General Court of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which
may (or may not) be helpful:

http://ehoganlovells.com/rv/ff0001d4cdf2b5e1d9b7c9a61548a14863a5390e/p=5

Sports teams' uniforms are interesting (to me, anyway). In the case of
the valuable professional club and international team brands, it seems
to be the clothing manufacturers who design them and offer them to
whoever controls the teams, and I imagine that they do some form of
licensing deal in which the design ownership lies with the
manufacturers. I don't know what practical steps they take to protect
those designs, but copyright and design registration are available. The
designs change frequently, so a new set of replica kit can be sold to
the fans, and there won't be time to establish exclusive trademark-style
rights by virtue of use before the design changes again.

Back in the days when team colours were stable, they were seldom
exclusive. For example, in the English Football League, Aston Villa,
Burnley and West Ham United all wore the same kit, near enough, as far
as I recall.

--
Paul

[Paul Wolff]

In message <a9ehbo...@mid.individual.net>, Cheryl <cper...@mun.ca>
writes

>On 2012-08-19 7:20 PM, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>> tony cooper <tony.co...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> I wonder, if you'd tell someone under 50 that we were able to make dry
>>> copies with a Xerox machine if they'd have any idea what we meant.
>>
>> Yeah, but just barely. They were xerox machines for me and we xeroxed
>> things and made xeroxes, even if another manufacturer's equipment was
>> used. And I did use mimeograph machines and carbon paper, but I never
>> actually used a wet copier.
>>
>I called it xeroxing until someone pointed out that the office one
>wasn't a xerox machine. After that, I slid into using 'copy' or
>'photocopy'.

Someone once told me that even "photocopy" was a once proprietary name
(or verb, pace Guy Barry, or process) that originated with Kodak. I
don't have any evidence that this was so, though, and most searchable
free trademark databases don't trouble to include long-dead applications
or registrations which expired back in the murk of history.
--
Paul

[tony cooper]

Lake Mary (an Orlando suburb) High School's sports team are called the
Rams. They used a logo that was very similar - almost exactly the
same - as the ram logo used by Dodge. Chrysler, the automaker who
makes the Dodge vehicles, filed a protest demanding the logo be
changed and all items using it be replaced.

There was an outpouring of anger against Chrysler for picking on a
high school. Local Chrysler and Dodge dealerships were picketed and
some groups advocated a boycott of Chrysler products.

Chrysler caved, and agreed that the logo could be used for a period of
time. A new logo has been designed, and will be used by the high
school on new purchases of logo-bearing items.

[Whiskers]

I don't think I've ever seen one of those. The 'Roneo' or 'Gestetner'
silk-screen duplicators using real ink
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mimeograph> were commonplace until
'photo-copiers' started to take over in the early '70s.

> It's a wonder we're all still alive, what with those, plus the mercury,
> benzine etc, we handled at school.

... and the lead, and the asbestos ... ah, the good old days!

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

[Whiskers]

Throughout my schooldays, ('50s and '60s in the UK) the teachers used
this sort of system <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hectograph>; they
could just about manage to get enough good copies for the class to have
one each. Some of the equipment looked home-made, and the process
wasn't quick, but it was probably cheap.

The 'machine', such as it was, fitted easily into a desk drawer or
cupboard shelf when not in use.

I think I've seen green and red 'ink', but usually it was purple or
blue. The copies were pretty durable; I still had several sheets of
music rolled around my recorder when I gave it away more than 20 years
later, and they showed no deterioration of the ink or paper other than
wear and tear.

I even found a page of insructions for making a jellygraph duplicator
of ones own! <http://www.fell.demon.co.uk/steve/jelly.html>.

[tony cooper]

On 20 Aug 2012 15:46:07 GMT, Whiskers <catwh...@operamail.com>
wrote:

Not mentioned so far is Savin Corporation. The Savin copiers in the
1960s used liquid-toner bath process. Savin copiers were made by
Ricoh, but sold under the name "Savin". Ricoh now owns Savin.

[R H Draney]

Whiskers filted:

>
>On 2012-08-20, the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> "The duplicating fluid typically consisted of a toxic 50/50 mix of
>> isopropanol and methanol, both of which were inexpensive, readily
>> available in quantity, evaporated quickly, and would not wrinkle the paper."
>

>> It's a wonder we're all still alive, what with those, plus the mercury,
>> benzine etc, we handled at school.
>
>... and the lead, and the asbestos ... ah, the good old days!

And at home, the eggs with runny yolks!...r


--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.

[R H Draney]

Paul Wolff filted:

>
>Back in the days when team colours were stable, they were seldom
>exclusive. For example, in the English Football League, Aston Villa,
>Burnley and West Ham United all wore the same kit, near enough, as far
>as I recall.

When I started junior high school, there was some kind of election going on to
decide whether the school colors should be changed from white and powder blue to
white and royal blue...you have no idea how insane the controversy seemed to a
deuteranope....r

[Garrett Wollman]

In article <a9ehbo...@mid.individual.net>, Cheryl <cper...@mun.ca> wrote:

>the main map. And I spent years using those thingys with alcohol in them
>- you wrote or typed on 'stencils', fastened them to a barrel and you
>were all set. Perhaps that's whay you mean by a wet copier? I've
>forgotten the name; I don't think we had a special one.

That's a spirit duplicator, most likely, like the ones they had when I
was in school.

A wet copier was different: it was effectively a photographic process,
like a xerographic ("dry") copier, but the process chemicals were
dissolved in toxic solvents which were applied to a special coated
paper. The copies came out damp and smelling of solvent, and you
needed to lay them out of a flat surface while they dried so that they
wouldn't curl too much. As I mentioned above, I've only ever seen
this process used for microform.

[Cheryl]

I've always been a bit bemused by school colours, spirit, etc. I once
worked in a school in which the gym teacher and some of the students
wanted to change the colours (which I have forgotten, green and yellow,
maybe?) to something more aggressive or sportslike or something else I'd
never particularly associated with colour.

Someone claimed that the colours were in fact those of St. Joseph, after
whom the school was named, and that finished the discussion!

I had also had no idea that colours were associated with particular
saints, although I was familiar with colours for different parts of the
church year and symbols used in paintings and sculptures to help
illiterates identify various saints.


--
Cheryl

[Garrett Wollman]

In article <nhjECuwo...@fpwolff.demon.co.uk>,

Paul Wolff <pa...@two.wolff.co.uk> wrote:

>I know of "trade dress" as a U.S. term but haven't ever got properly
>into it (and no jokes about my wardrobe please) so I don't know exactly
>by what legal mechanism it is protected in the U.S. It isn't a term used
>in English law and there's no common EU provision for protecting it. The
>different member states are free to protect it by their various unfair
>competition laws, including passing-off in the UK, or by trademark
>registration if it ticks the necessary boxes.

Well, trademark law in the U.S. is unfair competition law
(principally, at the Federal level, the Lanham Act), so that makes
sense. The courts have been pretty broad about the sorts of things
that can be interepreted as a "mark", including such things as sounds
(like the noise that Nextel two-way radios made), colors (like the
yellow border around the front cover of /National Geographic/), and
quite possibly even scents.

>Sports teams' uniforms are interesting (to me, anyway). In the case of
>the valuable professional club and international team brands, it seems
>to be the clothing manufacturers who design them and offer them to
>whoever controls the teams, and I imagine that they do some form of
>licensing deal in which the design ownership lies with the
>manufacturers.

Quite the opposite here. The physical design of the uniform (as an
article of clothing) is standardized, but the team-specific parts of
the uniform design -- the colors, applied badges and lettering,
etc. -- are jealously guarded by the teams. Historically, many
companies were licensed to make "official team apparel" for sale to
the public, but in recent years, the professional leagues (which are
organized as cartels) have chosen to collectively designate one
official supplier, to maximize the licensing revenue. Universities,
acting individually, also make exclusive licensing deals for team
apparel. In both cases, these consumer products are made to different
standards and often by different manufacturers than the uniforms worn
by the actual players. (Most significantly, since women do most of
the clothing buying in this country, many of the designs are modified
to fit women and girls. They are usually also lighter in weight.)

>those designs, but copyright and design registration are available. The
>designs change frequently, so a new set of replica kit can be sold to
>the fans, and there won't be time to establish exclusive trademark-style
>rights by virtue of use before the design changes again.

Professional sports teams in the U.S. change their uniforms extremely
rarely: perhaps one or two in a decade in each league. Usually it's
the logos that change, rather than the colors or overall design. (I
think my local baseball team, the Boston Red Sox, have made
significant uniform changes two or three times in the past century.)
Football and basketball teams are a bit more likely to fiddle with
their uniforms, but you still see many fans in the stands wearing an
older jersey design: they aren't going to buy a new one just because
the team has changed the design slightly, particularly if the favorite
player whose number they wear is no longer with the team.

[tony cooper]

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 18:18:44 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>In message <uoc4381334tq7oadk...@4ax.com>

>No one explained the "defend it or lose it" aspect of trademarks?

>
>> Chrysler caved, and agreed that the logo could be used for a period of
>> time. A new logo has been designed, and will be used by the high
>> school on new purchases of logo-bearing items.
>

>I suspect that Chrysler actaully licensed the image for a period of time
>on the condition it not be used on any new equipment. Which is wha they
>should have one initially. I wouldn't be surprised if they TRIED to do
>that, but were rbuffed by the school district.


It didn't go that way. Chrysler has given the school some time to
replace items displaying the logo, but no license. Previous and
subsequent newspaper accounts have given no indication that Chrysler
offered anything to the school district other than some time before
they cracked down.

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_education_edblog/2010/02/agreement-signed-to-end-lake-mary-highchrysler-dispute.html

[Paul Wolff]

In message <slrnk34vm3....@mbp55.local>, Lewis
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes
>In message <nhjECuwo...@fpwolff.demon.co.uk>

> Paul Wolff <boun...@two.wolff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I know of "trade dress" as a U.S. term but haven't ever got properly
>> into it (and no jokes about my wardrobe please) so I don't know exactly
>> by what legal mechanism it is protected in the U.S. It isn't a term used
>> in English law and there's no common EU provision for protecting it. The
>> different member states are free to protect it by their various unfair
>> competition laws, including passing-off in the UK, or by trademark
>> registration if it ticks the necessary boxes.
>

>The laws on it must be bizantine and I have no idea about the
>enforcement. I know you cannot paint a vehicle (any vehicle) "UPS
>Brown". It seems that trade dress violations, like all other trademark
>violations, would result in civil litigation, probably preceeded by a
>cease-and-desist order.

You probably mean "demand" rather than "order". Orders come from courts,
demands come from lawyers. I have the impression that in IP matters at
least, US courts tend to make do with large damage awards and be less
inclined to grant injunctions against future infringement than English
courts are. The thing about an injunction is that a breach is a contempt
of court, which can hit the directors of an infringing company
personally; they can be hauled up before the judge and locked up if
necessary because of their defiance. It has nothing to do with the
merits of an IP case, and all to do with enraging the judge. The
plaintiff can sit back and let the court do the work.
>
>Trade dress is probably one of the issues at the heart of the current
>Samsung/Apple trial (I can't say I've been following it closely).

Nor I, but there was amusement in the English press when the High Court
gave judgment for Samsung last month, saying that the Galaxy Tab didn't
copy the iPad, being "not as cool" according to His Lordship.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/samsung/9386878/Samsung-did-not-cop
y-cooler-Apple-iPad-High-Court-rules.html

or http://tinyurl.com/d4qx5hw

But much more informative and reliable is this professional blog report:

http://ipkitten.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/scoop-from-spook-no-its-victory-fo
r.html

I liked the intro with its summary of the other Eurocases going on, and
the follow-up comments at the end. The intervening judgment extracts can
be skipped unless you make a living from following that sort of thing.

The issue here was infringement of registered designs - European
statutory rights which are somewhat parallel, in a non-mathematical
sense, to design patents in the U.S.
>
>The article on Wikipedia is tl;dr, but the parts I skimmed seemed to
>cover the evolving nature of trade dress fairly well:
>
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_dress>
>
Thank you. I have never read the Lanham Act cover-to-cover and (a) don't
plan to start now, and (b) didn't know about that part. The unregistered
mark protection is clearly similar to our passing-off at common law.
--
Paul

[Mike L]

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 08:56:00 +0100, LFS
<la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote:

>On 20/08/2012 07:53, Lewis wrote:
>> In message <a9e2c4...@mid.individual.net>

>> LFS <la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote:
>>> The photocopiers at work are now a mystery to me. They seem capable of
>>> doing everything but the ironing and I have to get someone much younger
>>> to do my photocopying.
>>

>> I just drop a stack of papers on the top and press the copy button. that
>> seems to work most of the time. Even works on my home printer.
>>
>> I try to look at the little picture to see if I should put them face up
>> or face down.
>>
>
>I have to provide a password which I can never remember. I'm then asked
>to make choices about paper size and orientation and all sorts of other
>baffling things. And finding the copy button is itself a challenge.

The one in my local library accused me of attempting an "illegal
operation". I wasn't trying to copy a twenty-pound note: somebody had
left the paper drawer slightly open. The main thing slowing down older
users of newer technology isn't, I think, the complexity, but the
strange new dialect of English they use. Why, e.g., does my pocket
telephone imagine that "Silent" is a Profile? Why does my TV stop
showing subtitles only when I click "English"? Etc. But, above all,
why do my offspring have so little difficulty in understanding this
weirdo-speak?

--
Mike.

[Mike L]

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 15:14:31 -0230, Cheryl <cper...@mun.ca> wrote:
[...]

>
>I've always been a bit bemused by school colours, spirit, etc. I once
>worked in a school in which the gym teacher and some of the students
>wanted to change the colours (which I have forgotten, green and yellow,
>maybe?) to something more aggressive or sportslike or something else I'd
>never particularly associated with colour.

I've read that, in Britain at least, teams who play in red have a
statistical advantage over the others.
[...]
--
Mike.

[R H Draney]

Lewis filted:
>
>In message <k0tpr...@drn.newsguy.com>

>What about them?
>
><looks at his eggs with runny yolks>

Haven't you heard?...they're deadly poison!...eggs that haven't been cooked to a
chalky powder will give you Sam & Ella's disease as soon as look at you!...

And, god help me, they *do* look at you!...r

[Whiskers]

That's a new name to me, and a new process as well.

[LFS]

Everything you ever wanted to know about the history of such things:
http://www.officemuseum.com/copy_machines.htm

--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)

[James Silverton]

How did they come up with Joseph's colors? Was it perhaps from the Star
of David (like the flag of Israel) since Joseph was of David's house?

--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not" in Reply To.

[Jerry Friedman]

On Aug 20, 11:47 am, woll...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) wrote:
...

> Professional sports teams in the U.S. change their uniforms extremely
> rarely: perhaps one or two in a decade in each league.  Usually it's
> the logos that change, rather than the colors or overall design.

The Cleveland Cavaliers, still my favorite basketball team, have had
nine uniform changes and an additional logo change since they were
founded in 1970.

http://www.nba.com/cavaliers/history/logo_uniform_history.html

(Those interested in Jungian psychology will be glad to know that the
original colors have already become "archetypal".)

I haven't looked at any other teams.

> (I
> think my local baseball team, the Boston Red Sox, have made
> significant uniform changes two or three times in the past century.)
> Football and basketball teams are a bit more likely to fiddle with
> their uniforms, but you still see many fans in the stands wearing an
> older jersey design: they aren't going to buy a new one just because
> the team has changed the design slightly, particularly if the favorite
> player whose number they wear is no longer with the team.

I just made up the statistic that 43% of those fans bought the old
design as a "retro", "throwback", or "classic" uniform after the new
design came out.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

Thank you. Fascinating.


--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[Whiskers]

Good link!

[Cheryl]

I have no idea, and I won't be asking the person who made the claim,
since she's not around any more. I don't think the younger RCs I know
are any more up on saint's colours than I am myself, and the google
results are confusing.

--
Cheryl

[Robert Bannister]

On 20/08/12 2:04 PM, LFS wrote:

> On 19/08/2012 22:50, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>> tony cooper <tony.co...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> I wonder, if you'd tell someone under 50 that we were able to make dry
>>> copies with a Xerox machine if they'd have any idea what we meant.
>>
>> Yeah, but just barely. They were xerox machines for me and we xeroxed
>> things and made xeroxes, even if another manufacturer's equipment was
>> used. And I did use mimeograph machines and carbon paper, but I never
>> actually used a wet copier.
>>
>

> One of the tasks involved in my first ever job (in the accounts
> department of the International Twist Drill Company in Sheffield) was to
> clean out the wet copier and replace the evil-smelling chemicals. I
> sometimes wonder if this did me any lasting damage.
>
> Much of my early accountancy training a few years later involved copying
> documents on a huge Xerox machine in the basement of a City office. This
> seemed like a massive technological advance.

>
> The photocopiers at work are now a mystery to me. They seem capable of
> doing everything but the ironing and I have to get someone much younger
> to do my photocopying.
>

My home laser printer is a photocopier, scanner and fax machine. I
believe it will do the ironing too if you set it right.

--
Robert Bannister

[Robert Bannister]

If I want my washing machine to wash on cold, I have to press
"Lifecycles" and select the correct option. The "Options" button is, of
course, for something quite different.

--
Robert Bannister

[Robert Bannister]

On 20/08/12 6:20 PM, Cheryl wrote:

> On 2012-08-19 7:20 PM, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>> tony cooper <tony.co...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> I wonder, if you'd tell someone under 50 that we were able to make dry
>>> copies with a Xerox machine if they'd have any idea what we meant.
>>
>> Yeah, but just barely. They were xerox machines for me and we xeroxed
>> things and made xeroxes, even if another manufacturer's equipment was
>> used. And I did use mimeograph machines and carbon paper, but I never
>> actually used a wet copier.
>>

> I called it xeroxing until someone pointed out that the office one
> wasn't a xerox machine. After that, I slid into using 'copy' or
> 'photocopy'.
>
> I used several early copy machines. One was a giant map-copying machine
> which didn't deal well if the legends needed a different exposure than
> the main map. And I spent years using those thingys with alcohol in them
> - you wrote or typed on 'stencils', fastened them to a barrel and you
> were all set. Perhaps that's whay you mean by a wet copier? I've
> forgotten the name; I don't think we had a special one.
>

They were the ghostly ones, the "spirit duplicators" - pure voodoo. The
ones we mainly used were "Banda".

--
Robert Bannister

[Robert Bannister]

On 20/08/12 7:52 PM, the Omrud wrote:

> "The duplicating fluid typically consisted of a toxic 50/50 mix of
> isopropanol and methanol, both of which were inexpensive, readily
> available in quantity, evaporated quickly, and would not wrinkle the
> paper."
>
> It's a wonder we're all still alive, what with those, plus the mercury,
> benzine etc, we handled at school.
>

And yet the fumes from a normal photocopier smell much more toxic. I
have no idea whether they are or not.
--
Robert Bannister

[Robert Bannister]

On 21/08/12 3:17 AM, tony cooper wrote:

> It didn't go that way. Chrysler has given the school some time to
> replace items displaying the logo, but no license. Previous and
> subsequent newspaper accounts have given no indication that Chrysler
> offered anything to the school district other than some time before
> they cracked down.

Stupid really. This firm probably spends hundreds of thousands a year on
advertising. A small gesture like donating shirts with the logo and with
the addition of the Chrysler name could have got them both cheap
advertising and good will. I have seen similar things happen in other
places with other short-sighted firms.


--
Robert Bannister

[tony cooper]

On 20 Aug 2012 21:47:13 GMT, Whiskers <catwh...@operamail.com>
wrote:

>> Not mentioned so far is Savin Corporation. The Savin copiers in the
>> 1960s used liquid-toner bath process. Savin copiers were made by
>> Ricoh, but sold under the name "Savin". Ricoh now owns Savin.
>
>That's a new name to me, and a new process as well.

Savin was a major player in the US office copier market at one time.

[tony cooper]

I'm sure that occurred to the people at Chrysler. Then, the corporate
lawyers said "But if we...". Lawyers are paid to think what bad
things could happen if. They are not paid to think about what good
things could happen if.

[Irwell]

I spent a lot of time using a Gestetner(?} duplicator
in India. A wax coated stencil was cut on the typewriter
with the ribbon out of action.

[Glenn Knickerbocker]

On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 13:32:12 -0400, tony cooper wrote:
>It was natural to refer to it as "Xeroxing" because it meant a better
>copy, a simpler copying procedure, and a means to make a copy that
>anyone could do.

In the land of IBM, a few years later, it was natural to refer to it as
"photocopying" or just "copying," because it was bad enough just paying
the patent royalties without publicizing the other guy's machine.

ŹR http://users.bestweb.net/~notr/magictop.html
Who sneezed in my arpeggio? My beautiful arpeggio!

[Steve Hayes]

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 21:13:03 +0100, Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>The one in my local library accused me of attempting an "illegal
>operation". I wasn't trying to copy a twenty-pound note: somebody had
>left the paper drawer slightly open. The main thing slowing down older
>users of newer technology isn't, I think, the complexity, but the
>strange new dialect of English they use. Why, e.g., does my pocket
>telephone imagine that "Silent" is a Profile? Why does my TV stop
>showing subtitles only when I click "English"? Etc. But, above all,
>why do my offspring have so little difficulty in understanding this
>weirdo-speak?

And why does Facebook keep asking be to update my "status"?

And there are these endless radio ads urging people to "Know your status".

And then there this obsession with chaning the interface of G-mail and other
interactive web thingies replacing clear information with obscure squiggles.


--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[Steve Hayes]

On 20 Aug 2012 14:58:17 GMT, Whiskers <catwh...@operamail.com> wrote:

>> Banda:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banda_copier

>>
>> "The duplicating fluid typically consisted of a toxic 50/50 mix of
>> isopropanol and methanol, both of which were inexpensive, readily
>> available in quantity, evaporated quickly, and would not wrinkle the paper."
>

>I don't think I've ever seen one of those. The 'Roneo' or 'Gestetner'
>silk-screen duplicators using real ink
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mimeograph> were commonplace until
>'photo-copiers' started to take over in the early '70s.

I used to use both to produce magazines -- Roneo/Gestetner for the main text,
and spirit duplicators (Banda/Manda) for the covers, because with the latter
you could do multiple colours, and they were easier to draw on.

The Banda ones came from Block & Anderson, and the Manda ones from Mathieson &
Ashley, but they worked on the same principle.

As I understand it, what did for them was laser printers.

[Steve Hayes]

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 17:18:46 +0000 (UTC), wol...@bimajority.org (Garrett
Wollman) wrote:

>A wet copier was different: it was effectively a photographic process,
>like a xerographic ("dry") copier, but the process chemicals were
>dissolved in toxic solvents which were applied to a special coated
>paper. The copies came out damp and smelling of solvent, and you
>needed to lay them out of a flat surface while they dried so that they
>wouldn't curl too much. As I mentioned above, I've only ever seen
>this process used for microform.

We had a coated-paper copier like that, but then replaced it with a
plain-paper copier which was also a wet copier. Unlike Xerox, it had liquid
ink. It was from Nashua.