And should it use those rules to revoke a trademark that it had already granted over 40 years ago?
Are you suggesting that, if the government finds it made a mistake, that it should go on making that mistake into perpetuity? That's a strange stance to make.
I just don't see the logic of "this word is offensive, therefore we should allow counterfeit goods containing this word."
Does your outlook change if you rephrase it to: therefore we shouldn't protect it with the rule of law?
Only if it actually rules that the term is not offensive.
No. If a word is trademarked, and there is a rule that no offensive words or phrases can be trademarked, then any trademarked word, in the eyes of the government, is either (a) not offensive or (b) trademarked in error. Since "Redskin" is at least debatably offensive, the government had only one choice: (b).
why didn't anyone oppose the mark when it was being granted, or within a reasonable time after it was granted?
Why does it matter?
And let's say the government actually DOES explicitly rule that the term is not offensive.
I think, by canceling the trademark, the government has already indicated that it *is* offensive-- the appeals process is where they could be proven wrong.
I don't understand the rest of the paragraph containing the quoted sentence above.
The USPTO may have rules that say no offensive terms can be trademarked, but it really shouldn't.
I fail to see how that has any bearing on this specific, real world scenario. They do have that rule, and so, their actions are justified by it.
What makes "Redskins" so much more offensive then "Creepy-Ass Cracka"?
The amount of people complaining about it, and the volume at which they are complaining. Logically speaking, the only way you can really determine if something is offensive is how many people are offended by it, and how offended they are.
Emotion should not come into play when making policy.
..and if we were having a hypothetical question on whether or not this rule should exist, I might agree-- I believe the stance is that, by doing this, the government is "not removing itself", but actually making a statement.
In reality, the government is following the rules it has set for itself. They really had no other option but to remove the trademark protection. That is not a statement of whether the law is good or bad, but a fact.
The government is refusing to offer the protections it offers to millions of other things based only on if the term is offensive or not.
It clearly has rules that say that offensive terms cannot be trademarked. By allowing the trademark to continue in the light of this new scrutiny, the government is affirming that "Redskin" is not offensive.
I'm sure it's been said before, but if you have a problem with Google, don't use Google. I am well aware of the amount of information that Google has about me, (see: google.com/dashboard) and I am willing to give them that information in exchange for their services. This is a decision I have made.
You really need to understand that Google is completely optional, and thus, not as scary as you seem to believe.
They're taking you DNA because you were arrested, the same reason they take a fingerprint.
Now, if that DNA database were shared with outside organizations, or used to determine medical health, etc, then I agree with you that this is unacceptable, but that's a problem with the database, not the act of taking DNA to identify a person.
Your analogy makes no sense. If you're arrested for burglary and your fingerprints match those found on a bloody axe from a crime 4 years ago, you shouldn't be questioned about the bloody axe?
The fact that your DNA is matched with DNA found at an unrelated crime scene is a *fact*. There can be a logical explanation for it, of course, but it's still a new piece of evidence in a crime, and should be investigated. *Exactly like fingerprints.*
For this to matter, your DNA would have to be at the scene of the crime. Combined with the fact that the mere presence of DNA isn't an automatic guilty sentence, but just another form of evidence, and I really fail to see the problem here.
No matter *how* racist the cop, you'd still need to have your DNA at the scene of a crime for this to hurt you; and if your DNA is at the scene of a crime, the cops *should* question you about it.
Two kids found a security flaw in one of those electronic billboards... and the company, DPC, gave them ipads and invited them to come talk about security.
What did the DPC have to say about the hacking?
“This has never happened before, but we appreciate the fact that these guys have, in a charming way, pointed us to this huge problem. Now it is clearer than ever that we need to protect ourselves better,” DPC’s manager Slobodan Petrovic commented.
According to DPC’s [the billboard company] manager the two students are lucky to be in Serbia, as things may have ended differently in other countries. “In more developed countries, these actions are unthinkable because of severe sanctions,” he said.
When did things get so out of hand, here in America?
Never have I felt more personally ashamed of my country and its government than the actions revolving around wikileaks and Bradley Manning. No action taken has been reasonable, thoughtful, or just; merely vindictive, cruel, and petty. It has become clear that those people who claim to represent us, who claim to support ideals of truth, justice, and liberty are no more than petty tyrants who know they have done wrong, and will trample the liberty of anyone who dares push back, who dares suggest that a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, must also be visible to the people, not cloaked beneath "Classified".
I don't know what worries me more: that one day my daughter will return home from school and ask me why we let the government treat Bradley Manning so unjustly, or that she never knows his name, because the government sweeps this all under the rug, and the world forgets about a brave man who saw injustice and tried to stop it.
I am a veteran, and I personally believe that anyone who has sworn an oath to support and defend the US Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic, should support Bradley Manning as the hero he is.
Is there a penalty for submitting false reports? Is the system automated?
Gee, it would be a shame if some anonymous group started submitting thousands of accusations at randomly chosen IP addresses, thus shooting the false positive ratio through the roof, and showing what a horrible, expensive, badly implemented idea this is. Why, in that event, you wouldn't be able to know what was a "real" accusation, and what was a false one, and the whole system would collapse.