Olympics Tries To Block Olympian Newspaper (From Olympia, Washington) From Trademarking Its Name

from the and-the-gold-medal-in-trademark-pushyness-goes-to... dept

It's no secret that the Olympics can be ridiculously over aggressive with trademark claims, often getting governments to pass special intellectual property rules to allow the Olympics special control over certain names or phrases well outside the contours of existing intellectual property law. The various Olympic committees insist they "need" this to protect their revenue stream, but we didn't realize that gov'ts had any responsibility in helping the Olympics make lots of money. The latest move is that the US Olympic Committee is protesting a trademark application for the name of The Olympian, a newspaper in Olympia, Washington (thanks to Erik for sending that in). It would appear that the Olympian has been operating since 1889. That would be seven years prior to the first modern "Olympics" in 1896.

While I am left wondering why the Olympian suddenly decided to try to register the trademark on its name now (leading to the attempt to block the trademark), it does seem pretty ridiculous that the Olympics could suddenly claim that there might be confusion between the two after over a century of the two "brands" living together peacefully.

21 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Why Is Washington Singling Out Newspapers For A Tax Break Instead Of Journalism?

from the these-things-make-no-sense dept

We've discussed in the past the rather annoying tendency of some bemoaning the trouble facing newspapers (due to bad business decisions, such as taking on too much debt) of confusing "newspapers" for "journalism." They all too often assume that newspapers are the only source of journalism, when that simply isn't true. Unfortunately, it appears that politicians are guilty of the same basic fallacy. With reports that Washington State has created a special tax break for newspapers, Danny Sullivan is asking why isn't the tax break for journalism? By singling out newspapers, the politicians are effectively punishing journalists who work for other forms of media who didn't screw up their business, and rewarding the newspaper owners and management who made so many bad decisions.

33 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Court Says It's Not Online Gambling If You Can Renege On A Bet

from the hello-loophole dept

The US has always had this odd hatred for online gambling -- but no state has been more aggressive about the issue than Washington state -- even to the point of threatening people with arrests for even talking about online gambling. So, you can imagine that the state didn't look too favorably on the launch of a person-to-person "wager" site called Betcha.com which claimed it had found a nice loophole that made it legal: you could renege on your bet. Yes, if you lost a wager, you could click a button saying "I refuse to pay." The catch, of course, was that the site had a rating system, and if you reneged, it was likely to harm your rating, and others might refuse to bet against you. Betcha claimed that the presence of the renege button meant that it wasn't actually gambling, because you never actually had to bet any money.

The state of Washington not only disagreed, it took a month or so until state authorities raided the company, arrested its founders and seized its computers. That seems pretty extreme for what does seem to be a rather open question in the law. And, in fact, a state appeals court found that the Betcha founder is right: the presence of the renege button means that the site is not a gambling site:

"Accordingly, there is nothing risked, which is the essence of both the common law and statutory definition of 'gambling.'"

Of course, that doesn't mean Betcha is coming back into existence. Since its founder (who has a law degree and had carefully researched gambling laws to make sure the loophole was legit) was arrested, thrown in jail, extradited to Louisiana, charged (in Louisiana) with gambling-related felonies finally forcing him to negotiate a plea bargain, dropping the charges if he agreed to certain conditions. With that experience in mind, restarting the site and risking it happening again just doesn't seem that appealing.

So, way to go Washington State -- you tossed a guy in jail for a completely legal web business.

26 Comments | Leave a Comment..