I wish Hitler trademarked some of his phrases so you could launch an offensive against Ann Coulter's books a la your offensive against Al Franken's.
Which phrase(s) does Coulter use that make her a Hitler?
Anders:
Quote:
I am totally amazed about your mistrust in the american educational level.
I am talking about the word "confusion" is a legal context. The courts have to weigh the possibility of confusion. It's not as far out as you think.
Shawn:
Please tell me you are kidding with those links. O'Reilly, despite your hatred of him, is dead on.
Watching some of you guys yuck it up over this is like watching dogs bark at cars. You HATE that evil Fox News Channel, while Franken is some sort of satrical rebel hero. I encountered many people with this attitude, and it's amazing the how similiar their thinking is (despite their trumpeting of themselves as independent thinkers). Fight the power!
Confusion in legal context? There is no confusion in any context if there isn´t a confusion with those who read the words on the book.
The court has to account for the possibility that someone might be confused (or mistaken). It's the same phrase and it mimicks the look and feel of Fox News Channel. It's quite possible they'll win on these grounds alone.
But the above is not the real problem for Franken. It's the usage of the trademarked phrase to boost sales of a book. That part is cut and dry.
The court has to account for the possibility that someone might be confused (or mistaken). It's the same phrase and it mimicks the look and feel of Fox News Channel. It's quite possible they'll win on these grounds alone.
And this is why I say your view on the american populations comprehention skills is quite pessimistic. Or at least your view on the court systems view on it.
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
But the above is not the real problem for Franken. It's the usage of the trademarked phrase to boost sales of a book. That part is cut and dry.
You have to prove that 1) it does boost the sale of the book and 2) that it is because people mistake it as something from Fox and not because they appriciate the satire.
"Hi, my name is Hitler. If you disagree with me you are guilty of treason."
president bush's press pool reporters refers to coulter as a "social climbing slut-bitch" and the ones that don't like her call her a "social climbing bitch-slut"
And this is why I say your view on the american populations comprehention skills is quite pessimistic. Or at least your view on the court systems view on it.
You have to prove that 1) it does boost the sale of the book and 2) that it is because people mistake it as something from Fox and not because they appriciate the satire.
That's just it. It's not about "my view". It's about a judge determining whether or not someone would/could identify the cover with Fox News. It's damn close, that's for sure.
No, a sales boost does not have to be proven. It's the attempt that's the problem. Question: If Fox News did not use that slogan, do you think Franken would have used it? That's the real question, and I suspect we all know the answer.
BR:
Quote:
"Hi, my name is Hitler. If you disagree with me you are guilty of treason."
Try reading her book before making that leap. Or, continue to just look at the title and assume you understand.
whoever granted the trademark for a basic phrase such as "fair and balanced" should be dragged out into the street and beaten with "fair and balanced" two-by-fours. then this wouldn't even be an issue.
then again, franken might not have been compelled to use the phrase if it wasn't tied to fox news in the first place.
don't worry, al, you're good enough, smart enough, and doggone it, people like you! i'd like to see franken on o'reilly. actually, no i wouldn't.
and fox news shouldn't worry. we'll all be illiterate by 2011, and i won't be able to digest any written content that spans more than two screens worth of scrolling in my web browser.
p.s. by the way, since someone mentioned her, ann coulter really freaks me out. i won't get into specifics, but there's a vibe coming off her and her appearances on talk shows that i have seen that just gives me the willies. maybe it's because i feel like if i said the wrong thing around her, she'd make a few quick phone calls and i'd have some gentlemen in dark suits and sunglasses at my front door within 24 hours... *shiver*
p.p.s. you know what the REAL irony is? Fox is the network whose birthing cries were composed of what was considered at the time as vile primetime programming (both in content and, in some cases, scriptwriting). remember how parents were covering up their children's eyes and ears whenever "the simpsons" or "married with children" would come on the air? that was fox, folks. i feel old for talking like this, but i remember defending fox back then as a teenager growing up in high school. the president of fox, at either their first or second shareholders meeting (i think) brought strippers in for a public burlesque to show how different they were. i think he was asked to step down immediately following that display. what a difference a decade or so makes, huh?
I saw the C-Span interview and it seems to me that O'Reilly very obviously lied. He may have misspoke about the peabody award (several times at that), but then after Franken rather politely informed him about his mistake he then went on to deny that he ever said "Peabody." Isn't that a bona fide lie?
Also, can someone who thinks this lawsuit has merit please tell me how one could ever use the term "fair and balanced" in a title without violating trademark? Would it have to be something like:
"Al Franken's Satirical Look at Fox News' Use of the Term 'Fair and Balaned'"
Also, can someone who thinks this lawsuit has merit please tell me how one could ever use the term "fair and balanced" in a title without violating trademark? Would it have to be something like:
"Al Franken's Satirical Look at Fox News' Use of the Term 'Fair and Balaned'"
okay, i am no expert on this sort of thing, but use of a trademark phrase or even "look and feel" varies in degree, depending on what it's trying to sell. also, it depends on the context in which the phrase is used.
here's an example which may or may not help: during apple's "think different" phase, if i were another computer maker and tried to use the phrase "think different" to sell computers such as "rok's computers: think different", i am in direct violation. not only am i using a trademarked phrase, but i am in direct competition with the vendor who owns the trademark AND i am not making ANY attempt to differentiate the trademarked phrase from the owner's use. i don't have a leg to stand on.
BUT what if, instead of making computers, i ran a bookstore? "rok's books: think different" i might have a better case, as my use doesn't infringe on apple's market, but, again, it uses the phrase verbatim from it's trademark, and if i used it with marketing materials that also borrowed visually from apple's, they could make the case that i am using their trademark to make profit, because i am not parodying them, and instead just being lazy and taking a look, feel and motto and applying it to my own business. if apple decided to make me stop, they probably could fairly easily.
now let's say i played with the phrase a little. let's say it's still "rok's books" but now i use the phrase "read different." unless i am playing directly to apple's core market (like i only sold books about macs) or used their visual identity, they'd have a much harder case against me. sure, they probably would because i would still be a small vendor and couldn't keep up the legal costs, but technically, it would take them longer to wear me down. heck, along these lines, there was at least one major auto manufacturer who used the phrase "drive different," and apple didn't lay a glove on them.
there's also a matter of exposure. they have a much better case that i am using their trademark to compete in the same space if i am a large retailer. if i am a mom and pop store in the middle of nowhere, the case (weak though it is) could be made that i cannot be considered a serious threat to apple's marketshare through my use of the phrase.
finally, let's go that last step: "rok's alternative books: authors who think different". NOW, i am not in the same retail space, so i am not in competition, i am using it in context off a larger phrase which helps it have a more unique identity (but isn't completely unrelated to the overall product), and (let's assume) i am not aping apple's visual identity either. apple would have a hell of a time proving in a court of law that, no matter how successful my business was, that it has anything to do with apple, their ability to sell, market, etc. i doubt apple would even bother with me, and even if they did, i would probably win.
in al franken's case, he is teetering on the edge. sure, he modifies the context, but considering the demographic he's going for AND the visual look on the cover, the case could be made that he is unfairly leveraging the money and effort that fox news put forth in promoting "fair and balanced" as a trademarked phrase instead of thinking up something original on his own. but if he is parodying fox news in his book, it helps his cause, and he didn't just call it "al franken: fair and balanced", which also helps him a lot.
anyway, this is just a mish-mash compilation of how i understand that laws as they have been told to me over the years, and may not be entirely accurate. basically, can fox news sue? sure. but their time and money could probably be put to far better use than this.
This is what pisses me off about the Right wing more than anything else. You've got the presidency, you've got both houses of congress, you even have a majority of the governor's mansions. In short, YOUR ARE THE FREAKING POWER.
Seeing Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly positioning themselves as underdogs is ludicrous. Having trademarked a TV Network, and then trying to extend that trademark to book titles is ludicrous.
People here have made valid legal argument, and all you can do is just spout the same crap over and over again, only louder. Just like Fox.
This is what pisses me off about the Right wing more than anything else. You've got the presidency, you've got both houses of congress, you even have a majority of the governor's mansions. In short, YOUR ARE THE FREAKING POWER.
Seeing Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly positioning themselves as underdogs is ludicrous. Having trademarked a TV Network, and then trying to extend that trademark to book titles is ludicrous.
People here have made valid legal argument, and all you can do is just spout the same crap over and over again, only louder. Just like Fox.
Don't forget he also tries to silence the opposition. Remember Ari Fleischer? "WATCH WHAT YOU SAY!" "THE PRESIDENT CANNOT BE QUESTIONED!" "NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!" It's a common tactic of the "right." Not to say that the "left" doesn't also have its common tactics that are equallly repugnant to me, but we aren't talking about them right now.
Remember, he did report me to the mods for calling him a dummy head or something else rather harmless but he still turns around and says that anyone who thinks liberal is borderline retarded and should be made into soylent green a few days later. Just remember what you are dealing with here.
Don't forget he also tries to silence the opposition. Remember Ari Fleischer? "WATCH WHAT YOU SAY!" "THE PRESIDENT CANNOT BE QUESTIONED!" "NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!" It's a common tactic of the "right." Not to say that the "left" doesn't also have its common tactics that are equallly repugnant to me, but we aren't talking about them right now.
Remember, he did report me to the mods for calling him a dummy head or something else rather harmless but he still turns around and says that anyone who thinks liberal is borderline retarded and should be made into soylent green a few days later. Just remember what you are dealing with here.
This is what pisses me off about the Right wing more than anything else. You've got the presidency, you've got both houses of congress, you even have a majority of the governor's mansions. In short, YOUR ARE THE FREAKING POWER.
Seeing Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly positioning themselves as underdogs is ludicrous. Having trademarked a TV Network, and then trying to extend that trademark to book titles is ludicrous.
People here have made valid legal argument, and all you can do is just spout the same crap over and over again, only louder. Just like Fox.
Get a grip. I was being facetious. I've made several reasonable arguments as to why I think Franken should lose. You don't have to agree with those arguments.
Don't forget he also tries to silence the opposition. Remember Ari Fleischer? "WATCH WHAT YOU SAY!" "THE PRESIDENT CANNOT BE QUESTIONED!" "NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!" It's a common tactic of the "right." Not to say that the "left" doesn't also have its common tactics that are equallly repugnant to me, but we aren't talking about them right now.
Remember, he did report me to the mods for calling him a dummy head or something else rather harmless but he still turns around and says that anyone who thinks liberal is borderline retarded and should be made into soylent green a few days later. Just remember what you are dealing with here.
You need to back off. Either argue the point or get out of the thread. You're not going to just follow me around making statements like the above. Once again, your preference for trying to discredit and insult me rather than debate the point in question is clear.
Even the conservative Wall Street Journal agrees with us. I haven't seen a single editorial from anyone other than Fox that agrees with you. And blogs from rightwing crackpots don't count... those are a dime a dozen.
Comments
Originally posted by BR
I wish Hitler trademarked some of his phrases so you could launch an offensive against Ann Coulter's books a la your offensive against Al Franken's.
Which phrase(s) does Coulter use that make her a Hitler?
Anders:
I am totally amazed about your mistrust in the american educational level.
I am talking about the word "confusion" is a legal context. The courts have to weigh the possibility of confusion. It's not as far out as you think.
Shawn:
Please tell me you are kidding with those links. O'Reilly, despite your hatred of him, is dead on.
Watching some of you guys yuck it up over this is like watching dogs bark at cars. You HATE that evil Fox News Channel, while Franken is some sort of satrical rebel hero. I encountered many people with this attitude, and it's amazing the how similiar their thinking is (despite their trumpeting of themselves as independent thinkers). Fight the power!
Originally posted by SDW2001
I am talking about the word "confusion" is a legal context. The courts have to weigh the possibility of confusion. It's not as far out as you think.
Confusion in legal context? There is no confusion in any context if there isn´t a confusion with those who read the words on the book.
Originally posted by Anders
Confusion in legal context? There is no confusion in any context if there isn´t a confusion with those who read the words on the book.
The court has to account for the possibility that someone might be confused (or mistaken). It's the same phrase and it mimicks the look and feel of Fox News Channel. It's quite possible they'll win on these grounds alone.
But the above is not the real problem for Franken. It's the usage of the trademarked phrase to boost sales of a book. That part is cut and dry.
Originally posted by SDW2001
The court has to account for the possibility that someone might be confused (or mistaken). It's the same phrase and it mimicks the look and feel of Fox News Channel. It's quite possible they'll win on these grounds alone.
And this is why I say your view on the american populations comprehention skills is quite pessimistic. Or at least your view on the court systems view on it.
Originally posted by SDW2001
But the above is not the real problem for Franken. It's the usage of the trademarked phrase to boost sales of a book. That part is cut and dry.
You have to prove that 1) it does boost the sale of the book and 2) that it is because people mistake it as something from Fox and not because they appriciate the satire.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Which phrase(s) does Coulter use that make her a Hitler?
"Hi, my name is Hitler. If you disagree with me you are guilty of treason."
Originally posted by BR
"Hi, my name is Hitler. If you disagree with me you are guilty of treason."
president bush's press pool reporters refers to coulter as a "social climbing slut-bitch" and the ones that don't like her call her a "social climbing bitch-slut"
don't ask me how i know.
Originally posted by Anders
And this is why I say your view on the american populations comprehention skills is quite pessimistic. Or at least your view on the court systems view on it.
You have to prove that 1) it does boost the sale of the book and 2) that it is because people mistake it as something from Fox and not because they appriciate the satire.
That's just it. It's not about "my view". It's about a judge determining whether or not someone would/could identify the cover with Fox News. It's damn close, that's for sure.
No, a sales boost does not have to be proven. It's the attempt that's the problem. Question: If Fox News did not use that slogan, do you think Franken would have used it? That's the real question, and I suspect we all know the answer.
BR:
"Hi, my name is Hitler. If you disagree with me you are guilty of treason."
Try reading her book before making that leap. Or, continue to just look at the title and assume you understand.
He's not trying to dilute the trademark... he's making fun of it. He's not impersonating it he's ridiculing it.
http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/democ...on/6543046.htm
whoever granted the trademark for a basic phrase such as "fair and balanced" should be dragged out into the street and beaten with "fair and balanced" two-by-fours. then this wouldn't even be an issue.
then again, franken might not have been compelled to use the phrase if it wasn't tied to fox news in the first place.
don't worry, al, you're good enough, smart enough, and doggone it, people like you! i'd like to see franken on o'reilly. actually, no i wouldn't.
and fox news shouldn't worry. we'll all be illiterate by 2011, and i won't be able to digest any written content that spans more than two screens worth of scrolling in my web browser.
p.s. by the way, since someone mentioned her, ann coulter really freaks me out. i won't get into specifics, but there's a vibe coming off her and her appearances on talk shows that i have seen that just gives me the willies. maybe it's because i feel like if i said the wrong thing around her, she'd make a few quick phone calls and i'd have some gentlemen in dark suits and sunglasses at my front door within 24 hours... *shiver*
p.p.s. you know what the REAL irony is? Fox is the network whose birthing cries were composed of what was considered at the time as vile primetime programming (both in content and, in some cases, scriptwriting). remember how parents were covering up their children's eyes and ears whenever "the simpsons" or "married with children" would come on the air? that was fox, folks. i feel old for talking like this, but i remember defending fox back then as a teenager growing up in high school. the president of fox, at either their first or second shareholders meeting (i think) brought strippers in for a public burlesque to show how different they were. i think he was asked to step down immediately following that display. what a difference a decade or so makes, huh?
Also, can someone who thinks this lawsuit has merit please tell me how one could ever use the term "fair and balanced" in a title without violating trademark? Would it have to be something like:
"Al Franken's Satirical Look at Fox News' Use of the Term 'Fair and Balaned'"
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
Also, can someone who thinks this lawsuit has merit please tell me how one could ever use the term "fair and balanced" in a title without violating trademark? Would it have to be something like:
"Al Franken's Satirical Look at Fox News' Use of the Term 'Fair and Balaned'"
okay, i am no expert on this sort of thing, but use of a trademark phrase or even "look and feel" varies in degree, depending on what it's trying to sell. also, it depends on the context in which the phrase is used.
here's an example which may or may not help: during apple's "think different" phase, if i were another computer maker and tried to use the phrase "think different" to sell computers such as "rok's computers: think different", i am in direct violation. not only am i using a trademarked phrase, but i am in direct competition with the vendor who owns the trademark AND i am not making ANY attempt to differentiate the trademarked phrase from the owner's use. i don't have a leg to stand on.
BUT what if, instead of making computers, i ran a bookstore? "rok's books: think different" i might have a better case, as my use doesn't infringe on apple's market, but, again, it uses the phrase verbatim from it's trademark, and if i used it with marketing materials that also borrowed visually from apple's, they could make the case that i am using their trademark to make profit, because i am not parodying them, and instead just being lazy and taking a look, feel and motto and applying it to my own business. if apple decided to make me stop, they probably could fairly easily.
now let's say i played with the phrase a little. let's say it's still "rok's books" but now i use the phrase "read different." unless i am playing directly to apple's core market (like i only sold books about macs) or used their visual identity, they'd have a much harder case against me. sure, they probably would because i would still be a small vendor and couldn't keep up the legal costs, but technically, it would take them longer to wear me down. heck, along these lines, there was at least one major auto manufacturer who used the phrase "drive different," and apple didn't lay a glove on them.
there's also a matter of exposure. they have a much better case that i am using their trademark to compete in the same space if i am a large retailer. if i am a mom and pop store in the middle of nowhere, the case (weak though it is) could be made that i cannot be considered a serious threat to apple's marketshare through my use of the phrase.
finally, let's go that last step: "rok's alternative books: authors who think different". NOW, i am not in the same retail space, so i am not in competition, i am using it in context off a larger phrase which helps it have a more unique identity (but isn't completely unrelated to the overall product), and (let's assume) i am not aping apple's visual identity either. apple would have a hell of a time proving in a court of law that, no matter how successful my business was, that it has anything to do with apple, their ability to sell, market, etc. i doubt apple would even bother with me, and even if they did, i would probably win.
in al franken's case, he is teetering on the edge. sure, he modifies the context, but considering the demographic he's going for AND the visual look on the cover, the case could be made that he is unfairly leveraging the money and effort that fox news put forth in promoting "fair and balanced" as a trademarked phrase instead of thinking up something original on his own. but if he is parodying fox news in his book, it helps his cause, and he didn't just call it "al franken: fair and balanced", which also helps him a lot.
anyway, this is just a mish-mash compilation of how i understand that laws as they have been told to me over the years, and may not be entirely accurate. basically, can fox news sue? sure. but their time and money could probably be put to far better use than this.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Fight the power!
This is what pisses me off about the Right wing more than anything else. You've got the presidency, you've got both houses of congress, you even have a majority of the governor's mansions. In short, YOUR ARE THE FREAKING POWER.
Seeing Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly positioning themselves as underdogs is ludicrous. Having trademarked a TV Network, and then trying to extend that trademark to book titles is ludicrous.
People here have made valid legal argument, and all you can do is just spout the same crap over and over again, only louder. Just like Fox.
Originally posted by D.J. Adequate
This is what pisses me off about the Right wing more than anything else. You've got the presidency, you've got both houses of congress, you even have a majority of the governor's mansions. In short, YOUR ARE THE FREAKING POWER.
Seeing Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly positioning themselves as underdogs is ludicrous. Having trademarked a TV Network, and then trying to extend that trademark to book titles is ludicrous.
People here have made valid legal argument, and all you can do is just spout the same crap over and over again, only louder. Just like Fox.
Don't forget he also tries to silence the opposition. Remember Ari Fleischer? "WATCH WHAT YOU SAY!" "THE PRESIDENT CANNOT BE QUESTIONED!" "NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!" It's a common tactic of the "right." Not to say that the "left" doesn't also have its common tactics that are equallly repugnant to me, but we aren't talking about them right now.
Remember, he did report me to the mods for calling him a dummy head or something else rather harmless but he still turns around and says that anyone who thinks liberal is borderline retarded and should be made into soylent green a few days later. Just remember what you are dealing with here.
Originally posted by BR
Don't forget he also tries to silence the opposition. Remember Ari Fleischer? "WATCH WHAT YOU SAY!" "THE PRESIDENT CANNOT BE QUESTIONED!" "NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!" It's a common tactic of the "right." Not to say that the "left" doesn't also have its common tactics that are equallly repugnant to me, but we aren't talking about them right now.
Remember, he did report me to the mods for calling him a dummy head or something else rather harmless but he still turns around and says that anyone who thinks liberal is borderline retarded and should be made into soylent green a few days later. Just remember what you are dealing with here.
Probably lucky I only said "Freaking" then.
It's #6 on Amazon's Top 100 at the moment.
Originally posted by D.J. Adequate
This is what pisses me off about the Right wing more than anything else. You've got the presidency, you've got both houses of congress, you even have a majority of the governor's mansions. In short, YOUR ARE THE FREAKING POWER.
Seeing Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly positioning themselves as underdogs is ludicrous. Having trademarked a TV Network, and then trying to extend that trademark to book titles is ludicrous.
People here have made valid legal argument, and all you can do is just spout the same crap over and over again, only louder. Just like Fox.
Get a grip. I was being facetious. I've made several reasonable arguments as to why I think Franken should lose. You don't have to agree with those arguments.
Originally posted by BR
Don't forget he also tries to silence the opposition. Remember Ari Fleischer? "WATCH WHAT YOU SAY!" "THE PRESIDENT CANNOT BE QUESTIONED!" "NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!" It's a common tactic of the "right." Not to say that the "left" doesn't also have its common tactics that are equallly repugnant to me, but we aren't talking about them right now.
Remember, he did report me to the mods for calling him a dummy head or something else rather harmless but he still turns around and says that anyone who thinks liberal is borderline retarded and should be made into soylent green a few days later. Just remember what you are dealing with here.
You need to back off. Either argue the point or get out of the thread. You're not going to just follow me around making statements like the above. Once again, your preference for trying to discredit and insult me rather than debate the point in question is clear.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110003890