E-mail Scott
Scott's Links
About the Author
Opinion Archives
Social Media:
Facebook
Twitter
Tumblr
Google Plus
YouTube
Flickr
PhotoBucket
Monthly Archives:

January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
November 2013
December 2013
January 2014
February 2014
March 2014
April 2014
May 2014
June 2014
July 2014
August 2014
September 2014
October 2014
November 2014
December 2014
January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
April 2015
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
August 2015
September 2015
October 2015
November 2015
December 2015
January 2016
February 2016
March 2016
April 2016
May 2016
June 2016
July 2016
August 2016
September 2016
October 2016
November 2016
December 2016
January 2017
February 2017
March 2017
April 2017
May 2017
June 2017

Powered by Blogger
Subscribe via RSS

Wednesday, June 25, 2014

Washington Redskins, property rights and free speech

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM (#)

To follow up on a short post from last week, and the comments under that post, here are some additional thoughts about the Washington Redskins' trademark being stolen by the Obama regime.

First of all, intellectual property rights are property rights. The team has been the Washington Redskins since 1937, and has had its trademark for decades.Taking away the trademark protection and allowing others to use the name without paying a royalty to the team is government-enabled theft, pure and simple. This was a purely political decision, and no matter what trademark law says the Obama regime does not have the legal authority under the Constitution to punish the Washington Redskins because he does not like their name.

Second, I used the wrong term: It is a trademark, not a patent. To which I say: Whoop de diddly do. I am sure none of my critics have ever used the wrong word in either conversation or something written. Yes, I made a mistake, but it is patently absurd to argue that one wrong word affects my credibility one way or the other. Get over it.

Third, of course this is a free speech issue. The Obama regime has encouraged theft on a grand scale because of an offensive word, and has moved to deny the Washington Redskins equal protection under the law for their intellectual property. The fact that this is a shamelessly political decision by Obama regime activists is illustrated by an excellent column by Brent Bozell. It is absurd that the abbreviation for "Mothers I'd Like to F***" is given trademark protection but the name of a football team that has had the same name for nearly 80 years is not.

  • The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office... approved the phrase "Dago Swagg," despite the insult to Italian-Americans, as well as "Uppity Negro."
  • Nine uses became registered trademarks, including "Diary of a MILF," "MILF Magnet," MILF Next Door," "Backroom MILF," "MILF Workout" and even "Fat MILF."
  • The PTO found insufficient evidence that the term "Cumbrella" for condoms was scandalous.

Fortunately, the Redskins' trademark protection will remain in place as the Obama regime's decision is appealed. While I personally think the name should be changed, that decision should be made by the National Football team and the Washington Redskins, not by bureaucrats in the Obama regime. And yes, this is an Obama decision. He has made absolutely no effort to stop or reverse this decision by his own Executive branch. Obama apologists need to own this decision, especially since they are praising it.


Below are the rules for commenting on ConservaTibbs.com.

  1. A reasonable level of civility is expected. While it is expected that controversial political and social issues may generate heated debate, there are common-sense limits of civility that will be enforced.

  2. This blog is a family-friendly site. Therefore no cursing, profanity, vulgarity, obscenity, etc. will be allowed. This is a zero-tolerance rule and will result in automatic deletion of the offending post.

  3. Anonymity has greatly coarsened discourse on the Internet, so pseudonyms are discouraged but not forbidden. That said, any direct criticism of a person by name may not be done anonymously. If you criticize someone, you must subject yourself to the same level of scrutiny or the comment will be deleted.

  4. You must put a name or pseudonym on your comments. All comments by "Anonymous" will be deleted.

  5. Please keep your comments relevant to the topic of the post.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Comments:

At June 26, 2014 at 11:47 AM , Blogger Unknown said...  

"Third, of course this is a free speech issue. The Obama regime has encouraged theft on a grand scale because of an offensive word, and has moved to deny the Washington Redskins equal protection under the law for their intellectual property. "

Irony alert. Allowing more people to use words without fear of being sued in court just for using the words is anti "free-speech."

Granting a corporation a government-protected monopoly to use certain words, in certain orders, is pro "free-speech."

That's the kind of muddled thinking that leads someone to other equally silly and ridiculous positions. Like the sun revolves around the earth. Or the planet isn't getting warmer.


At June 26, 2014 at 6:37 PM , Blogger Mike Newton said...  

"Second, I used the wrong term: It is a trademark, not a patent. To which I say: Whoop de diddly do. I am sure none of my critics have ever used the wrong word in either conversation or something written."

Of course they have, and you never fail to stamp your little feet while accusing them of outrageous deception, "whining," "shrieking," etc. That's just the way you're wired, Scott--far from admirable, but at least predictable.