6 ms·

I've wondered about this with the Superbowl, aka "The Big Game". I understand that refusing to let people mention your hugely popular event without paying is a

by drcube 15y ago

I've wondered about this with the Superbowl, aka "The Big Game". I understand that refusing to let people mention your hugely popular event without paying is a quick way to make money. But does it help in the long term? For events no one's ever heard of, obviously, it would be better to spread the word, rather than delete all unofficial mentions. It seems to me that eventually, the Superbowl will be better known as "the Big Game" or some other euphemism, and the NFL will be stuck wondering why they squandered their valuable trademark. The Olympics, due to its historical nature, may be less susceptible. But how do you trademark a term that has been used since ~750 BC? I'm wondering what would happen if there were a movement to follow the rules religiously. Imagine if the only place you heard "Olympics" was in crappy advertisements? And every real human you talked to just said "The Quadrennial International Grab-Bag of Sports". Or maybe the "Quigbos". Anyway, I'm rambling. I just really hope these language police get what's coming to them.

gaius 15y ago
But how do you trademark a term that has been used since ~750 BC? You pass an Act of Parliament to that effect. I'm not even kidding; that's what they've done.
- _delirium 15y ago
  True in the U.S. as well; the Amateur Sports Act of 1978 granted a special trademark on "Olympic" and "Olympiad". That trademark was challenged by the Sports Event Formerly Known As The Gay Olympics, but the Supreme Court upheld it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Arts_%26_Athletics,_Inc._v._United_States_Olympic_Committee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Arts_%26_Athletic...
- rmc 15y ago
  Remember the UK doesn't have a constitution and hence it's not clear what it can't do. One common theory is "Parliament can pass a law on anything that's not physically impossible". Kinda makes a change from "only regulat interstate commerce"
  - rwmj 15y ago
    While it's not always good, it does allow government to move quickly and avoids the kind of weird deadlocks (eg. over healthcare, the budget) that one sees in the US. There are also limits: MPs individually vote, and on something that was hugely controversial they would defy the whips. It's not "the Government" but a collection of individuals. And in the end we can vote them out and overturn absolutely any legislation in the next Parliament.
    - noarchy 15y ago
      Allowing government to move quickly and without restriction is not something that many would see as a good thing. Government deadlocks are not always a bad thing, either, particularly when the issue is controversial. I'd argue that it is far better to have an issue debated and for compromises to occur, than to have one party's solution shoved quickly into place. This includes so-called emergencies, which are often excuses to go after civil liberties.
      - EvilTerran 15y ago
        Unfortunately, the recent US budget fiasco shows that governance rules intended to discourage excess speed and encourage debate can backfire.
        mjwalshe 15y ago
        And the lack or party disaplin means that you have to make lots of dubious deals to dole out pork or to pander to fringe extremists. Oh and in most places adding unrealted riders to bills for pork is banned. Germany has the same problem caused by PR Andrea Merkal needs 1 green vote to stay in power so buy buy Nuclear power I am sure Rep or Dem whips visiting the HOC must be jelous of the power that their counterparts have.
      - epscylonb 15y ago
        Rushed legislation is usually bad legislation. As a UK citizen I agree with you, the real problem is the apathetic electorate though, we get the politicians we deserve.
tnorthcutt 15y ago
According to Paul Levy, everyone calling the Superbowl the "Big Game" is stupid; they should just call it the Superbowl: http://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/2012/02/brand-name-weenies-its-time-to-stand-up-to-the-nfl-and-call-it-the-superbowl.html http://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/2012/02/brand-name-weenies...
- J3L2404 15y ago
  Sounds more like Paul Harvey.

by drcube 15y ago

gaius 15y ago

But how do you trademark a term that has been used since ~750 BC? You pass an Act of Parliament to that effect. I'm not even kidding; that's what they've done.

_delirium 15y ago
True in the U.S. as well; the Amateur Sports Act of 1978 granted a special trademark on "Olympic" and "Olympiad". That trademark was challenged by the Sports Event Formerly Known As The Gay Olympics, but the Supreme Court upheld it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Arts_%26_Athletics,_Inc._v._United_States_Olympic_Committee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Arts_%26_Athletic...
rmc 15y ago
Remember the UK doesn't have a constitution and hence it's not clear what it can't do. One common theory is "Parliament can pass a law on anything that's not physically impossible". Kinda makes a change from "only regulat interstate commerce"
- rwmj 15y ago
  While it's not always good, it does allow government to move quickly and avoids the kind of weird deadlocks (eg. over healthcare, the budget) that one sees in the US. There are also limits: MPs individually vote, and on something that was hugely controversial they would defy the whips. It's not "the Government" but a collection of individuals. And in the end we can vote them out and overturn absolutely any legislation in the next Parliament.
  - noarchy 15y ago
    Allowing government to move quickly and without restriction is not something that many would see as a good thing. Government deadlocks are not always a bad thing, either, particularly when the issue is controversial. I'd argue that it is far better to have an issue debated and for compromises to occur, than to have one party's solution shoved quickly into place. This includes so-called emergencies, which are often excuses to go after civil liberties.
    - EvilTerran 15y ago
      Unfortunately, the recent US budget fiasco shows that governance rules intended to discourage excess speed and encourage debate can backfire.
      - mjwalshe 15y ago
        And the lack or party disaplin means that you have to make lots of dubious deals to dole out pork or to pander to fringe extremists. Oh and in most places adding unrealted riders to bills for pork is banned. Germany has the same problem caused by PR Andrea Merkal needs 1 green vote to stay in power so buy buy Nuclear power I am sure Rep or Dem whips visiting the HOC must be jelous of the power that their counterparts have.
    - epscylonb 15y ago
      Rushed legislation is usually bad legislation. As a UK citizen I agree with you, the real problem is the apathetic electorate though, we get the politicians we deserve.

tnorthcutt 15y ago

According to Paul Levy, everyone calling the Superbowl the "Big Game" is stupid; they should just call it the Superbowl: http://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/2012/02/brand-name-weenies-its-time-to-stand-up-to-the-nfl-and-call-it-the-superbowl.html http://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/2012/02/brand-name-weenies...

J3L2404 15y ago
Sounds more like Paul Harvey.