Re: "cutting-edge technology from the advertising industry"
For what it's worth, those of you that read the linked articles will know that the cell-providers who would be Blue's "Google" in this instance are vehemently denying they had anything to do with this and are saying the Ukraine govt. operates its own transmitters that can hijack their platform....
"This leaves me confused. How can "removing" a word allow for more speech? Are others now able to wax poetic using the "word" that you deem offensive?"
Ok, try to follow with me now: they....are....not....removing...the...word. They aren't preventing the Washington team from retaining their name, they aren't preventing them from using it in commerce, they aren't preventing anyone from saying that word. At all.
All removing the trademark would do is allow EVERYONE to use the word in commerce. Currently, only the Washington team can do so in their market. Removing the mark would allow for more speech, not less.
What the hell does the origin of the word have to do with its present day use? The meaning of words change. Here's a brief history of the term Redskin, which changed from a self-identifier to a word meant to disparage.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, as long as government is enforcing GOOD speech.....
"Look, you and Masnick and all the others that regularly write for this site have consistently taken the position that using IP law for purposes for which it was not intended, or to do an end run around the law to accomplish something via IP that couldn't otherwise legally be accomplished is an inappropriate abuse of IP law."
Well, that's simply not true. I won't speak for the Maz, but I've never been dogmatic about how IP is used. My only concern was that it server its GENERAL purpose of promoting the progress, which, interestingly, DENYING trademarks can do, as in this case, where more people would be able to use more speech in more commerce. Yet you have a problem with it, because you seem to think that this is outside of trademark's scope, despite the fact that denying degrading language is baked into the law. It's, honestly, a very strange position to take for anyone that isn't emotionally tied to the team name....
"Yet that's exactly what you're advocating here."
Mmmm, no. It's not an inappropriate use at all, it's baked directly into the law. This isn't some new end-around, it's been around forever.
"It's purpose is not to confer a government endorsement or 'sanctification' (your words) of the business that receives the trademark."
Nobody said that was its "purpose", it's just the de facto nature of a govt. granted privilege. Similarly, the purpose of diplomatic relations isn't to end up with an emissary in a foreign country in an embassy that must be guarded and protected....that's just the nature of the position. Your point is literally not saying anything.
"Nor is it the purpose of trademark law for the government to prevent people from being offended by a business's name."
You seem to think this has to do with people being offended. It doesn't. Words can be disparaging by their very nature without any need for validation by the target. If I don't care enough for a homosexual man sitting next to me to call him a cocksucking faggot, his laughing it off doesn't make my words NOT disparaging. The issue is the nature and history of the word, not how many people are offended. The term Redskin OBVIOUSLY is a disparaging term, as has been cited in previous articles.
"Based on every other position you guys take on the issues surrounding IP law, I honestly can't believe you'd be in favor of giving the government that power, but apparently you, at least, are."
Again, the govt. is taking an action that actually allows for more speech by more people in more commerce, not less. That would seem to be entirely consistent with what we discuss here. I think you may have some blinders on preventing you from seeing this....
"Apparently IP law abuse is fine when you're heart's in the right place and your intentions are pure. Or something like that."
You keep repeating that this is abuse, but you haven't bothered to explain what the balls you're talking about. Disparagement is written into Trademark law. The USPTO just showed how it's supposed to have been done. What "abuse"? Was the USPTO wrong for denying this mark? Do you not think disparagement clauses exist? Do you somehow think that the term Redskin is not a disparaging term?
"They're partnering with MLB Advanced Media to handle the streaming end, so I would expect similar quality to whatever you get watching baseball games online."
I subscribe to the MLB.TV package and I can tell you that the streaming quality has ALWAYS impressed me. No, I don't think it's in 1080, but the streams are reliable and in HD. I wouldn't be surprised if we saw 1080 coming down the line when higher speed internet becomes more ubiquitous. Remember, tons of baseball fans using that service live in places where high speed internets aren't a thing....