When I read this BBC article, Wal-Mart seeks smiley face rights, I had a hard time believing it was true. It has been sloshing around in the US public domain for decades; you can’t just claim it belongs to you when everyone knows you didn’t create it.
The arrogance of some knows no bounds.
On-line Opinion Magazine featuring annoyed rumblings from the leading edge of the Baby Boom firmly tied to a reality-based world.
Established: 21 November 2004
The opinions expressed in Comments are those of the individuals making them. Truly absurd comments and opinions are subject to being cruelly mocked, but "flame wars" will take place on someone else's dime.
Your first comment, all comments with extensive links, and random comments that the software decides it doesn't like for no discernible reason will be held for moderation.
[Be aware that for unknown reasons the software rejects comments shorter than 15 characters, so if you want to leave a short comment fill the gap with periods ........]
4 comments
Well this is one for the books…be interested to see that ruling.
But Likewise good “Old McDonald (Had a Farm…E, I, E, I OHHH)” had often sucessfully bullied anyone using the *MC* prefix – even when it’s someone’s actualy family name (like us good ole Scots from clan McLauchlan) incorporated as part of a business enterprise Name. And this is even IF that business has nothing to do with Burgers, fries or even FOOD. They claim the entire *MC* prefix as they say it is is SOOO recognized with their entity, that it deserves this protection!
Bleh!
They are patenting genes and trademarking our names. I’m surprised the Republicans haven’t sought a trademark on the flag and national anthem.
I’m surprised the Republicans haven’t sought a trademark on the flag and national anthem.
They’ve been trying that since the Nixon administration (remember “Honor America Day” in 1970?), but they usually trip over themselves.
I still think May 1st as “Loyalty Day” is pretty creepy.