Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Feb 21st, 2012 @ 12:14am

   
   

   All original ideas need to be immediately donated to the collective. No one should be allowed to profit off an innovative thought, invention, or creation.
   
   This is wrong.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Feb 21st, 2012 @ 12:25am

   
   

   Apple is filing a patent for Linsanity on a mobile device in 2014. Book it.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   

   F!, Feb 21st, 2012 @ 12:35am

   
   

   Let's flood the trademark office...
   
   Everyone file a TM application for "Linsanity"!

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Feb 21st, 2012 @ 1:06am

   
   

   Finally insanity caught up with reality.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   

   G Thompson (profile), Feb 21st, 2012 @ 1:07am

   
   

   That's Linsane!
   
   Talking about L/Insanity putting a HUGE chink in the Armour of common sense.
   
   http://randazza.wordpress.com/2012/02/20/max-bretos-owes-no-apology/
   
   The world is mad... (or is just the USA and this weird sport called basketball) ;)

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Feb 21st, 2012 @ 1:07am

   
   

   Re:

   I think you mistake the ability of one person to find a way to profit from something with a granted monopoly that excludes others from doing the same thing as something good.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7.  

   

   Mike Masnick (profile), Feb 21st, 2012 @ 1:41am

   
   

   Re:

   All original ideas need to be immediately donated to the collective. No one should be allowed to profit off an innovative thought, invention, or creation.
   
   Kinda funny that I actually disagree with almost everything in that sentence. I don't believe in "donating to the collective." I believe strongly in private property rights. And I'm a huge fan of helping people profit from innovative thoughts, inventions and creations -- just not using bogus artificial monopolies to do so. But you know this.
   
   But, tell me, when did Jeremy Lin create the term "Linsanity"?
   
   Thanks.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

8.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Feb 21st, 2012 @ 2:10am

   
   

   Sadly, the term "linsanity" has been used often enough in reference to Lindsey Lohan.
   
   http://perezhilton.com/2010-09-28-lindsay_lohan_wants_spray_tan_lawsuit_dismissed#.T0NtUfE geKI
   
   While I doubt she would claim trademark on it, it is clear that this term actually refers to someone else. It would be somewhat disappointing not to be able to refer to Ms Lohan using this term.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

9.  

   

   The eejit (profile), Feb 21st, 2012 @ 3:23am

   
   

   Re: Re:

   He created it out of being a basketball sensation who's also Taiwanese.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

10.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Feb 21st, 2012 @ 3:27am

    
    

    Entitlement culture

    It's the entitlement culture: if you work hard to do something, you should be entitled to special government-supported monopolies (disclaimer: I am not in agreement).
    
    Jeremy Lin did invest a lot of work (presumably) to become the good basketball player he is, and enable the term "Linsanity" to mean something special --- therefore, by entitlement logic, he deserves, er, something. Maybe we should invent a new kind of IP just for him.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

11.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Feb 21st, 2012 @ 3:55am

    
    

    Linux will have a hard time because of all of this.
    
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincity
    
    Lincity is a game, and I know that "Lin" is common among Linux users.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

12.  

    

    martyburns (profile), Feb 21st, 2012 @ 5:06am

    
    

    Could start a trend..

    Watch out! Barbra will be coming for 'The Streisand Effect' soon!

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

13.  

    

    James Plotkin, Feb 21st, 2012 @ 5:14am

    
    

    Re:

    The very nature of a trademark is to distinguish the wares or services (or on this case person) it is associated with from others.
    
    Don't you think you're being a little too radical here? sounds like the Borg.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

14.  

    

    James Plotkin, Feb 21st, 2012 @ 5:19am

    
    

    Re: Entitlement culture

    I understand your sentiment. It gets on my nerves in some contexts as well.
    
    What if you were to think of it less as an entitlement culture and as more of a reward culture (particularly in this instance). Lin HAS worked hard to achieve what he has. It's less offensive to view this as a reward than an entitlement...though I agree you can see it either way. to me it's a glass half empty or half full scenario. If you don't like P the glass is half empty, if you do...well, you see where I'm going with this.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

15.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Feb 21st, 2012 @ 5:21am

    
    

    There is fundamentally nothing wrong with receiving a trademark on a name so long as it is used in commerce in conjunction with the sale of specific goods and/or services, use being a mandatory condition for all trademarks.
    
    See, 15 USC 1502 (Title 15 generally being referred to as the Lanham Act)

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

16.  

    

    ChurchHatesTucker (profile), Feb 21st, 2012 @ 6:13am

    
    

    Re:

    And every other possible pun. #Linning

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

17.  

    

    The Groove Tiger (profile), Feb 21st, 2012 @ 6:44am

    
    

    Re: Re:

    He's just using some good old reductio ad absurdum to prove wrong everyone who says trademark is bad.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

18.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Feb 21st, 2012 @ 6:59am

    
    

    I would rather Jeremy Lin have the rights to the term, than anyone else.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

19.  

    

    GMacGuffin (profile), Feb 21st, 2012 @ 7:41am

    
    

    5 Applications, 4 "Intent to Use"

    Just checked USPTO. There are currently five pending applications and all but one are 1B "intent to use" apps, with one of the first two reported being a 1A (use in commerce) application (meaning he didn't know what he was doing, or had already printed the t-shirts). Most are for apparel; one for sports player management.
    
    It's not really a matter of who coined the term, but rather who was first to use it in commerce in a particular field to identify their goods or services (so theoretically, the jewelry and sports management and one of the apparel applicants could all use the mark if they didn't intend to expand into other fields).
    
    After that, it gets complicated and grey, and there are areas of TM law (like domain cybersquatting) that statutorily recognize personal names as a basis for rights to the mark.
    
    So in the end, my guess would be it will boil down to a "Dude... seriously" test, the "seriously" being that Jeremy Lin is the dude gets to use the mark after it all shakes out -- he being the subject and all.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

20.  

    

    GMacGuffin (profile), Feb 21st, 2012 @ 7:59am

    
    

    In the same vein, if I were to register the TM "Streisand Effect" for services (or for clothing: "Streisand Affect") you can bet that Streisand would get the mark over whomever coined the term ... er, Mike.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

21.  

    

    Anonymous Anonymous Coward, Feb 21st, 2012 @ 8:03am

    
    

    Publicity Rights????

    Just where did this concept come from. I have always been under the impression that once one became a 'public figure' one lost a certain amount of privacy. Now, created out of someones pure imagination, there is a right to control that loss of privacy? I object.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

22.  

    

    Mateo Jose (profile), Feb 21st, 2012 @ 8:11am

    
    

    What is Jeremy Lin?

    And why is it in the news everyday? Quite annoying.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

23.  

    

    Josh (profile), Feb 21st, 2012 @ 8:21am

    
    

    Is it too much to hope for?

    Maybe he just wants the trademark so he can use it defensively, like Google and many of their patents.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

24.  

    

    The eejit (profile), Feb 21st, 2012 @ 9:18am

    
    

    Re: What is Jeremy Lin?

    He currently has the best debut season in NBA history, averaging higher thanboth Michael Jordan and "Magic" Johnson in the NBA for the opening 5 games, and is set to score the most points in na single season by a Point-Guard.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

25.  

    

    dwg, Feb 21st, 2012 @ 3:45pm

    
    

    Re: 5 Applications, 4 "Intent to Use"

    It's not about who coined it: if it's attached closely enough to a famous person's own name, then the person gets to decide who gets to register the mark. You can...if he agrees. If not, not.
    
    And it's not about first in commerce, completely: it can be about first to constructively use (i.e., file an "intent to use" application) if no one has a use date preceding.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment