4 ms·

The problem here is that "his" name is also a common verb in the English language that means "to raise something for discussion". I'm not sure he should get to

The problem here is that "his" name is also a common verb in the English language that means "to raise something for discussion". I'm not sure he should get to prevent any discussion forum software from using that word, or the clever dns hack moot.it to advertise said software that lets you "discuss it", because he happened to choose a common-ish verb as a screen name, years ago.

DanBC 14y ago
> The problem here is that "his" name is also a common verb in the English language that means "to raise something for discussion" Common? Please can you point to any online usage of the word in that way? I know lots of people use it to mean "no longer relevant". > 2. N. Amer. (orig. Law). Of a case, issue, etc.: having no practical significance or relevance; abstract, academic. Now the usual sense in North America.
- msbarnett 14y ago
  Maybe I just spend too much time around lawyer types, or maybe its usage in the original meaning is simply more common in Canada than the US (which, given the amount of UKisms we've retained, isn't unlikely), but I hear it used that way on a fairly regular basis. "meaningless/irrelevant" is the adjectival form of moot, not the verb, and it's worth reinforcing that this is a usage shift specific to North America. To "moot it" doesn't mean "to make it irrelevant"; rather, things originally became "moot" when they were topics you could argue over but which had no further relevance in the law, and the latter grew to dominate its usage in the adjectival form in North America. But that usage didn't migrate back to the verb, or appear at all abroad. Here's a usage in verbal noun form to mean "a meeting for discussion": http://www.themagicboxstore.com/paganmoot.htm http://www.themagicboxstore.com/paganmoot.htm And there are, of course, the well known "moot courts", so named not because they're "unpractical/irrelevant/meaningless" court but instead because they're forums for the students to debate the law.
thaumaturgy 14y ago
"common" is a stretch -- maybe it's common as a regional dialect. Regardless, that's somewhat irrelevant: "moot" is far more commonly used to refer to Christopher Poole in the context of online discussions. (Even a quick glance at the search results of e.g. HN comments with the term "moot" confirms this.) Keep in mind that UPS has successfully trademarked a color, as have many other companies; "Apple" is a trademark, "Time" is a trademark, "Shell" is a trademark, "Caterpillar" is a trademark ... and odds are, as you read each of those common words, you knew exactly which company holds the trademark. Whether or not "moot" should be a trademark is largely philosophical and not a debate I feel like putting any energy into. However, that moot can be a trademark even if it's a "common" word seems obvious at this point.
- mbreese 14y ago
  > "moot" is far more commonly used to refer to Christopher Poole in the context of online discussions That's completely wrong. The majority of the world doesn't know who Moot is. The majority doesn't even know what 4chan is, even if they do start most of the internet memes. If I asked my mom what "moot" meant, she'd probably tell me something like "something that's no longer relevant or worth arguing about". Using HN comments as a confirmation tool is equally ridiculous. We are not the right community to use when determining the legal usage of a phrase. While each of the common names your have listed are trademarks, they are trademarks within their respective fields. It would be completely appropriate for me to start a watch shop and call it "Time" (assuming there isn't already a national or state trademark of watch shops called "Time"). Moot is an online persona, not a product. I'm not familiar with New York state law on "public rights of publicity", but I'm pretty sure that he doesn't have exclusive rights to the word "Moot". This would be like Tom from MySpace suing Tom's shoes or TomTom. (Okay, not quite because the company is working on forum software which is close to 4chan, but it's not far off).
  - thaumaturgy 14y ago
    You seem to be a pretty smart individual. How could I have made it more clear that I was talking about "moot" in the context of online discussions when I wrote, "in the context of online discussions," which you quoted? Serious question. I seem to be having trouble getting even longtime HN readers to respond to what I actually wrote, instead of what they imagine I wrote. I'm trying to figure out what I'm doing wrong. Unless you're prepared to argue that the majority of the world uses online discussions or talks about online discussion systems, or that a conversation with your mom is a suitable anecdote when talking about online discussions, I think you should reconsider just how "completely wrong" my argument was. Because, you're right, the examples I cited are trademarks within their respective fields, and that was the entire point of my comment. I apologize for not making that more clear.

DanBC 14y ago

> The problem here is that "his" name is also a common verb in the English language that means "to raise something for discussion" Common? Please can you point to any online usage of the word in that way? I know lots of people use it to mean "no longer relevant". > 2. N. Amer. (orig. Law). Of a case, issue, etc.: having no practical significance or relevance; abstract, academic. Now the usual sense in North America.

msbarnett 14y ago
Maybe I just spend too much time around lawyer types, or maybe its usage in the original meaning is simply more common in Canada than the US (which, given the amount of UKisms we've retained, isn't unlikely), but I hear it used that way on a fairly regular basis. "meaningless/irrelevant" is the adjectival form of moot, not the verb, and it's worth reinforcing that this is a usage shift specific to North America. To "moot it" doesn't mean "to make it irrelevant"; rather, things originally became "moot" when they were topics you could argue over but which had no further relevance in the law, and the latter grew to dominate its usage in the adjectival form in North America. But that usage didn't migrate back to the verb, or appear at all abroad. Here's a usage in verbal noun form to mean "a meeting for discussion": http://www.themagicboxstore.com/paganmoot.htm http://www.themagicboxstore.com/paganmoot.htm And there are, of course, the well known "moot courts", so named not because they're "unpractical/irrelevant/meaningless" court but instead because they're forums for the students to debate the law.

thaumaturgy 14y ago

"common" is a stretch -- maybe it's common as a regional dialect. Regardless, that's somewhat irrelevant: "moot" is far more commonly used to refer to Christopher Poole in the context of online discussions. (Even a quick glance at the search results of e.g. HN comments with the term "moot" confirms this.) Keep in mind that UPS has successfully trademarked a color, as have many other companies; "Apple" is a trademark, "Time" is a trademark, "Shell" is a trademark, "Caterpillar" is a trademark ... and odds are, as you read each of those common words, you knew exactly which company holds the trademark. Whether or not "moot" should be a trademark is largely philosophical and not a debate I feel like putting any energy into. However, that moot can be a trademark even if it's a "common" word seems obvious at this point.

mbreese 14y ago
> "moot" is far more commonly used to refer to Christopher Poole in the context of online discussions That's completely wrong. The majority of the world doesn't know who Moot is. The majority doesn't even know what 4chan is, even if they do start most of the internet memes. If I asked my mom what "moot" meant, she'd probably tell me something like "something that's no longer relevant or worth arguing about". Using HN comments as a confirmation tool is equally ridiculous. We are not the right community to use when determining the legal usage of a phrase. While each of the common names your have listed are trademarks, they are trademarks within their respective fields. It would be completely appropriate for me to start a watch shop and call it "Time" (assuming there isn't already a national or state trademark of watch shops called "Time"). Moot is an online persona, not a product. I'm not familiar with New York state law on "public rights of publicity", but I'm pretty sure that he doesn't have exclusive rights to the word "Moot". This would be like Tom from MySpace suing Tom's shoes or TomTom. (Okay, not quite because the company is working on forum software which is close to 4chan, but it's not far off).
- thaumaturgy 14y ago
  You seem to be a pretty smart individual. How could I have made it more clear that I was talking about "moot" in the context of online discussions when I wrote, "in the context of online discussions," which you quoted? Serious question. I seem to be having trouble getting even longtime HN readers to respond to what I actually wrote, instead of what they imagine I wrote. I'm trying to figure out what I'm doing wrong. Unless you're prepared to argue that the majority of the world uses online discussions or talks about online discussion systems, or that a conversation with your mom is a suitable anecdote when talking about online discussions, I think you should reconsider just how "completely wrong" my argument was. Because, you're right, the examples I cited are trademarks within their respective fields, and that was the entire point of my comment. I apologize for not making that more clear.