Started By
Message
re: Aggies Sue Indy Colts over use of "12th man"...
Posted on 11/12/15 at 6:01 pm to WestCoastAg
Posted on 11/12/15 at 6:01 pm to WestCoastAg
I mean, it's not that outlandish when one looks at it from a legal perspective and not an anti-a&m one 
This post was edited on 11/12/15 at 6:02 pm
0
Posted on 11/12/15 at 6:04 pm to CajunTiger_225
quote:
I guess I'm putting more emotion in to it but what I'm getting at is that I don't think a&m believes in that tradition if there's a price on it. I would think they wouldn't allow anyone to use it at all if it was that important to the school.
It's not about tradition, it's about the value of the trademark. And trademark law says you can still protect the trademark if you license it, as long as you take steps to maintain the value of the trademark.
If A&M lost the trademark argument, they would still maintain the tradition.
This post was edited on 11/12/15 at 6:07 pm
Posted on 11/12/15 at 6:04 pm to CajunTiger_225
quote:
what I'm getting at is that I don't think a&m believes in that tradition if there's a price on it.
You would be incorrect, sir.
Kind of a silly notion. We have a copyright on said tradition. One must take action to protect a copyright.
Therefore, the fact that a&m takes such steps would seem to indicate that a&m DOES believe in that tradition, no?
Posted on 11/12/15 at 6:04 pm to WestCoastAg
quote:
proof outside of the seahawks? Surely there are others if this is true
Not necessarily. The Seahawks are probably the only organization who wants to use the term and can afford to pay for it at the same time.
Posted on 11/12/15 at 6:04 pm to CajunTiger_225
quote:well ain't that a bitch
Not necessarily
quote:the colts?
The Seahawks are probably the only organization who wants to use the term and can afford to pay for it at the same time.
Posted on 11/12/15 at 6:07 pm to CajunTiger_225
quote:
Not necessarily. The Seahawks are probably the only organization who wants to use the term and can afford to pay for it at the same time.
Seahawks have the real 12th man, their fans actually make a difference. Opposing players talk about that stadium, fanbase, etc.
Nobody talks about the fan noise affecting the game in Indy or College Station.
Posted on 11/12/15 at 6:14 pm to bayou2003
quote:
Seahawks have the real 12th man, their fans actually make a difference. Opposing players talk about that stadium, fanbase, etc.
College football players talk about the A&M 12th Man, too. Bama specifically this year.
A&M's has been around much longer. You do realize a&m was nearly undefeated at home in the 90s, correct? Where was Seattle's 12th Man then? Good teams win. Period. No one can deny the A&M 12th Man creates a terrific, unique atmosphere.
Posted on 11/12/15 at 6:14 pm to TbirdSpur2010
Well it seems Indy forced a&ms hand. And im not anti a&m dammit. Just don't understand alot of the things yall do and I don't see how you could blame me.
I guess we all are just going to see this different. I see trademarking something to make it exclusive to said organization and I don't see how letting others use it for sums of money protects it when you could just prevent them from using it at all. Therefore I don't see a&m believing in the tradition but instead just 'owning' it.
I guess we all are just going to see this different. I see trademarking something to make it exclusive to said organization and I don't see how letting others use it for sums of money protects it when you could just prevent them from using it at all. Therefore I don't see a&m believing in the tradition but instead just 'owning' it.
Posted on 11/12/15 at 6:15 pm to TbirdSpur2010
quote:
Kind of a silly notion. We have a copyright on said tradition. One must take action to protect a copyright.
I think you trademark the mark (12th Man TM). I don't think you trademark or copyright a tradition.
The reason lots of folks think this is dumb is that lots of people used 12th man. It's a pretty common usage to explain the value of fans.
Hence, the idea that A&M could trademark it and keep the mark from other teams just seems a bit odd to folks other than A&M. However, that doesn't change the fact that A&M can do whatever it wants with the tradition of its 12th Man, with or without its ownership of the trademark.
Posted on 11/12/15 at 6:15 pm to CajunTiger_225
quote:how do you not understand us protecting our trademark?
Just don't understand alot of the things yall do and I don't see how you could blame me.
quote:wow
I don't see how letting others use it for sums of money protects it when you could just prevent them from using it at all. Therefore I don't see a&m believing in the tradition but instead just 'owning' it.
Posted on 11/12/15 at 6:18 pm to CajunTiger_225
quote:
I see trademarking something to make it exclusive to said organization and I don't see how letting others use it for sums of money protects it
You don't understand how copyrights work.
quote:
I don't see a&m believing in the tradition but instead just 'owning' it.
Erroneous conclusion.
Posted on 11/12/15 at 6:19 pm to TbirdSpur2010
quote:we literally were sending them cease and decease letters. That totally screams money grab
Erroneous conclusion
Posted on 11/12/15 at 6:19 pm to oman
quote:
the idea that A&M could trademark it and keep the mark from other teams just seems a bit odd to folks other than A&M
Tough titty
quote:
A&M can do whatever it wants with the tradition of its 12th Man
Damn straight.
Posted on 11/12/15 at 6:20 pm to WestCoastAg
You're so useless talking to
Posted on 11/12/15 at 6:21 pm to CajunTiger_225
Because you literally say things I can't respond to
Posted on 11/12/15 at 6:22 pm to WestCoastAg
He's talking about the Corps and all the Japs and Krauts you all have killed.
Posted on 11/12/15 at 6:25 pm to CajunTiger_225
Having a copyright literally means controlling the usage of that which is copyrighted (within the bounds of the law). It does not necessarily mean exclusivity, in fact, it rarely means such in real life application. That appears to be the rub in your understanding of why TAMU would seek to protect their copyright.
Failure to do so would result in us no longer having it. We keep it because we care about/believe in it, unlike what you were suggesting.
Failure to do so would result in us no longer having it. We keep it because we care about/believe in it, unlike what you were suggesting.
Posted on 11/12/15 at 6:27 pm to WestCoastAg
Or you just have a hellacious time putting your thoughts of what you want to say together.
I answered this question like 4 times..
quote:
how do you not understand us protecting our trademark?
I answered this question like 4 times..
Posted on 11/12/15 at 6:28 pm to CajunTiger_225
quote:yep. That's it
Or you just have a hellacious time putting your thoughts of what you want to say together
quote:with a logically and legally flawed answer. Which brings back my question
I answered this question like 4 times..
This post was edited on 11/12/15 at 6:29 pm
Posted on 11/12/15 at 6:32 pm to TbirdSpur2010
quote:
That appears to be the rub in your understanding of why TAMU would seek to protect their copyright.
I get protecting it and would fully expect them to how many times I got to say that. I'm not even griping about the suit with the Colts. I'm talking about the purpose of letting others use it for money when you could make them stop using it all together.
Page 5 of 9
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News