More "Trademark" issues

No. The Clerk of Court should be licensed to shoot-to-kill the lawyers who file those suits. OK, OK maybe that's too extreme. I take it back. Howz'bout if they just get disbarred for life, with a limit of ONE appeal? Disbarment would be in effect until the appeal was heard. I can go with that.

IMO, unless you can get inside and fly it through the air under its own power it isn't an airplane, it's a model of an airplane. Boeing builds airplanes, not model airplanes. There can be no confusion or competition in these cases. Not only that, but Boeing DOES NOT BUILD, HAS NOT BUILT for 60 years, and WILL NOT build, a real B-17 for any reason. So WTF do they care if B. Douglas Wudjabitemie sells models of B-17s or 747s or DC-3s. This thing is out of control. Froggy,

Some of you know that I have some serious eyesight problems. Your comment above reminded me of a government employee who flat out told me that I "deserved" a large screen monitor at taxpayers' expense because of my poor eyesight! I darn near threw him out of my office for that one.

dlm

Wonder how the argument might go, at least with modern era airplanes, that the US taxpayers paid for the R&D and end products produced so why should those among the taxpayers who build model airplanes get gouged a second time with added fees?

Which marks do you believe the UP "owns"? (Hint: They claim to "own" the names and logos of 1800 predecessor railroads, but they can't name them -- can you?)

Of the marks that the UP claims to "own", which marks do you believe they've registered with the Trademark Office?

Of those, which marks do you believe specify use on model trains, as required by the Trademark Office?

Of those, which marks do you believe the UP actually uses when it designs, produces or sells model trains?

How many modelers do you know who think their model locomotives and rolling stock are designed, produced or sold by the UP?

JR Hill

They bought them; they own them. Why do so many of you hate the idea of property rights?

Why do so many of you hate the idea of property rights?< Not sure what your idea of "bought them" is but Trademarks are not bought but created. Also they have nothing in common with "property rights" such as owning a house or land. I would suggest reading about the law. All of the current problems are created by to many lawyers in this society. We should decimate them. Actually that wouldn't help either, what's the word for every third one?

Terminate...

and for every one of them...

Primate

Lawyers merely respond to the demands for their services. A lawyer's duty is to represent his or her client. If people didn't want to use the law to screw each other, lawyers would have very little to do. So blame the clients.

My dad always kept a quote taped to the inside of one of the kitchen cupboards. It went something like, "The youth of today are a menace. They have no respect for their elders, they have no manners, go around drunk in public, no respect for social mores, blah blah blah, and I foresee the end of civilisation in three generations if this keeps up." It was signed "Socrates". I don't know if he really said that, but I could see it.

I always figured respect had to be earned, but out nation seems awash in those who respect the uniform/position regardless of how much a twit or a sh-t the wearer/holder is.

Jay, Something to the same effect was stated in one of the earliest writings known to exist. Can't put my finger on exactly who it was at the moment. Apparently civilization has been going to hell in a hand basket ever since it started. Another ancient text almost as old expressed concern that Model Railroading was a dieing hobby. Bruce

First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. - Shakespeare, Henry VI

This proposal in re. model aircraft copyrights was raised here quite a while ago. I came across it in a web site 'Modelling Madness', which anyone who'se interested might wish to look at. Regards, Bill.

You evidently are not a student of Shakespeare. The full story as told by Shakespeare was that some folks were discussing assassinating the king. In contemplating the likelihood of success one of them muses that in order to get away with it and reap the benefits they would "first have to get rid of all the lawyers." (The lawyers would not recognize anything derived from the act as legal). It is interesting that the very inaccurate modern usage is to turn it 180 degrees into a slur upon lawyers.

degrees into a slur upon lawyers.< In the book "how to avoid probate" there is a statement in the front that states, looking at every (violent) revolution, the judges and lawyers are hung first. I have never studied the history of this but the man who wrote the book was a lawyer.

Oxymoron alert!!

(or is it Shark Attack?)

See if you can find a book from about 30 years ago called "The Screwing of the Average Man". I'm not sure if the author was a lawyer* or not, but one thing for sure - he wasn't a title insurance parasite!

• the book makes an excellent case that probate serves as "welfare for bottom rung lawyers"

Copyrights, trademarks and patents have been considered property in the USA for over 200 years. I think that qualifies as traditional.

The government does not license for any of these. They are guaranteed by the US Constitution.

Patents are granted by the government. The patent holder licenses it to others.

Copyrights are inherent in a created work, and can be registered.

Tradements are registered but must have that registration approved by the government.

Patents and copyrights have time limits.

Trademarks can be renewed forever if they are in use.

Are you one of those people who thinks something only has value if it hurts when you drop it on your foot?

The "them" I am referring to are the trademarks of the predecessor railroads.

Trademarks CAN be bought and sold.

Certainly a trademark isn't real estate, like a house or land is. I never claimed otherwise (nor have others), so I don't know how you made that jump in logic to equate trademark ownership with real estate ownership. But trademarks ARE property, and a person (or a corporation, in the case of the Union Pacific's trademarks) can own and license them to others.

If people don't like the Union Pacific's trademark policy because they feel that the trademark isn't owned by the U.P. anymore because of non-use, that's OK. Certainly myself (and others) don't feel that is the case, but there surely are grounds for others to make that claim.

Likewise, if people don't like the Union Pacific's trademark policy because they feel that it is bad for the model railroading community, again that's OK. Even though the legality may be in question (depending upon if you believe the U.P. owns the trademarks... see above), I'm sure people on the other side of that argument can at least see where that concept is coming from.

BUT... if you're going to say that trademarks can't be bought, and that the owner of a trademark has no rights (if no rights, what does ownership mean then?)... well then, you're just blowing smoke. Why even make such ridiculous claims?

___________ Mark Mathu Whitefish Bay, Wis.