Katherine Griffis-Greenberg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rick Baudé Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----

Hmmm...we seem to be talking past each other instead of too each other. So let's try again and see what happens.
> >> How about calendars?
> > Do you think that the patent rights to the
> > calendar ended 70 years after the death of
> Julius
> > Caesar? Not by a long shot, I found what
> looks
> > like about a thousand or so patents on
> Calendars
> > and all of them are some variation of the
> Julian
> > calendar.
> >
> > > Considering that the present
> calendrical
> > system is based upon the Gregorian calendar,
> your
> > argument fails.
> >
> > Well at the risk of being disingenuous I had
> a
> > feeling that if I said Gregorian, you'd say
> it was
> > a Julian calendar. Or if I said Julian you'd
> say
> > Gregorian. So I picked Julian since it had
> > priority to the Gregorian. But yes I know
> all of
> > this.
>
> I suspect I am more aware of the history of
> calendars than you give me credit.

I don't understand your comment I wasn't questioning or challenging your knowledge of calendars at all. Any antiquarian scholar or egyptologist had better have a working knowledge of calendars or else their work will be seriously flawed. With all the intricacies of Egyptian chronology I would be astonished if you didn't have a handle on calendrics.

>
> > At best, the Gregorian is a different
> > > system from the Julian, and at worst, it
> is
> > an improvement - which requires original
> thought
> > by its creator. Yet, the concept of time
> > reckoning in a calendrical system is not
> patentable: it's
> > an abstraction and abstractions are not
> > patentable (see below).
> > >
> > > Further, the Julian calendar is based
> upon
> > the calendars of the Egyptians, via the
> > Ptolemies. So even Julius Caesar didn't own
> the "rights" to
> > his own calendar system, as the Egyptians
> had
> > already conceived of the 365 day year and
> the leap
> > year day before Julius Caesar came along.
> > >
> when I wrote:
> > You surely don't think that you today
> receive
> > your Snickers bar by Hero's machine (not
> Heron)
> >
> > Actually "Hero" and "Heron" seem to be
> fairly
> > interchangeable in "Heroic/Heronic" studies.
>
>
> Actually, it's not - one can speak of "hero" or
> the name "Hero", but no dictionary recognises its
> adjective as "heronic" - it's "heroic". The person
> Hero created vending machines, true; so they're
> either Hero's machines, which is probably the
> preferred way to express it, since he
> possessed/created them, or they're "Heroic"
> machines, which is probably a more confusing
> expression since "Heroic" has a totally different
> meaning in English vernacular. However, under no
> circumstances, is the adjectival term "Heron"
> (only in Italian does "Herone" have the adjective
> meaning pertaining to/of the person "Hero").
>
> In fact, the main reference I found to associating
> "hero" with "heronic" was a treatise on poor
> reading skills, which said:
>
> ...Phonetically implausible substitutions included
> all other miscues that did not result in real
> words, such as omitting syllables or phonemes
> (e.g., imagative for imaginative, judical for
> judicial), adding syllables or phonemes (e.g.
> grugie for grudge,heronic for heroic), or
> substituting a phonetically implausible syllable
> or phoneme (e.g, permanate or permanent, traggady
> for tragedy)." Source: Patterns of Word
> Recognition Errors Among Adult Basic Education
> Native and Nonnative Speakers of English. A NCSALL
> Research Brief

Impressive research. However, once again we seem to be talking passed each other. What I was saying is there doesn't appear, on the surface, to be any real preference or agreement on whether it's "Hero" or "Heron" as a proper name. But I've found in private conversation if I say "Hero of Alexandria" People think I'm talking about "A" 'Hero' of Alexandria instead of "Hero of Alexandria. If I call him 'Heron'people think I'm talking about a bird. Frankly, I'm only interested in his inventions and their impact on our lives, which is considerable. May I suggest you do a google search on "HERON of Alexandria" I came up with a 139,000 hits. Even Encylcopedia Britannica uses "Heron".
>
> > I prefer "Hero" since his name in the
> original Greek
> > only had four letters in it, though I have
> a
> > fifteenth century translation of his work
> into
> > Italian where it's rendered "Herone". By the
> way
> > while we're nitpicking here. IIRC In a
> previous
> > post you said that Kentucky Fried Chicken
> changed
> > their name to KFC because the state of
> Kentucky
> > copyrighted the word "Kentucky" and KFC
> refused to
> > pay the fee. That was an urban legend. But
> I
> > decided to let it pass since your central
> point,
> > that everybody's slapping copyrights on
> everything
> > under the sun was right on the money.
>
> Again, wrong. From Snopes Urban Legends Reference
> Pages:
>
> ...It sounded good, but the real reason behind the
> shift to KFC had nothing to do with healthy food
> or finicky consumers: it was about money — money
> that Kentucky Fried Chicken would have had to pay
> to continue using their original name. In 1990,
> the Commonwealth of Kentucky, mired in debt, took
> the unusual step of trademarking their name.
> Henceforth, anyone using the word "Kentucky" for
> business reasons — inside or outside of the state
> — would have to obtain permission and pay
> licensing fees to the Commonwealth of Kentucky. It
> was an unusual and brilliant scheme to alleviate
> government debt, but it was also one that
> alienated one of the most famous companies ever
> associated with Kentucky. The venerable Kentucky
> Fried Chicken chain, a mainstay of American
> culture since its first franchise opened in Salt
> Lake City in 1952, refused as a matter of
> principle to pay royalties on a name they had been
> using for four decades. After a year of fruitless
> negotiations with the Kentucky state government,
> Kentucky Fried Chicken — unwilling to submit to
> "such a terrible injustice" — threw in the towel
> and changed their name instead, timing the
> announcement to coincide with the introduction of
> new packaging and products to obscure the real
> reasons behind the altering of their corporate
> name.
>
> Kentucky Fried Chicken were not the only ones who
> bravely refused to knuckle under. The name of the
> most famous horse race in North America, held
> every year at Churchill Downs, was changed from
> the "Kentucky Derby" to "The Run for the Roses"
> for similar reasons; many seed and nursery outfits
> that had previously offered Kentucky Bluegrass
> switched to a product known as "Shenendoah
> Bluegrass" instead; and Neil Diamond's song
> "Kentucky Woman" was dropped from radio playlists
> at his request, as the licensing fees he was
> obligated to pay the Commonwealth of Kentucky
> exceeded the peformance royalties he was receiving
> for the airplay.
>
> Update: In November 2006, KFC and the State of
> Kentucky finally reached an undisclosed settlement
> over the former's use of the trademarked word
> "Kentucky," and the restaurant chain announced it
> would be resuming its former name of "Kentucky
> Fried Chicken." Source: CLAIM: The restaurant
> chain formerly known as "Kentucky Fried Chicken"
> changed its name to KFC to eliminate the word
> "fried" from its title.
>
> Next time perhaps you had better not claim I am
> promulgating urban myth until you have your facts
> straight.

Next time might I suggest you consult Wikepedia (Please no "Wikipedia is garbage comments", they've cleaned up their act tremendously from what I can see.) [en.wikipedia.org]. I went to Snopes and noticed that they didn't cite any laws or lawsuits to support their assertion. I did more google search on KFC royalty rights and variations and just came up with the usual corporate cat fight law suits over-who-owed-who-how-much-for-royalty-fees. As you can see Snopes or Wikipedia is hardly the definitive statement on the matter. BTW since there's no definitive answer to this question so far I'm going to write a letter to KFC and try and get some resolution to this question once and for all.

When I read your original comment I was so astonished at it that I scoured the Kentucky state home page looking for information on obtaining licensing rights for using the word "Kentucky". I found nothing. Then I went to Wikipedia where it said that the trademark dispute along with Col. Sanders using biogenetic mutant chickens were both urban legends and THAT WAS BEFORE I POSTED MY RESPONSE TO YOU. Yes I do try to get my facts straight but iirc as the saying goes "Even Homer nodded.". Posting on a board, I might do a google search and leave it at that. However, in my own personal research it's exhaustive and expensive. For instance I've been doing research for a novel that I'm writing, I've searched through newspaper archives, dug up death certicates (couldn't resist that low hanging fruit) written to government agencies, done geneological(sp?) research checked California Supreme Court records etc. In the course of doing the background research I found what I thought were some interesting facts about a person whom my family had "business" relations with (i.e. they almost got screwed blue by him. But he ran many other con-rackets) I researched it further and further and further. I found advertisements with this persons, schedules of his radio shows and I even procured "his" published material, recordings and thought that I had found something new and original. That was until I checked his son's obituary (!) and subsequent phone calls to my mother and found out what I thought was one person was actually two different people whose career paths were almost identical but they just happened to share a very, very uncommon name and lived at the SAME time period and the SAME geographical area that I was researching. All my research came crashing to the ground with that dull fact.


>
> > where "a lever which opened up a valve which
> let
> > some water flow out. The pan continued to
> tilt
> > with the weight of the coin until it fell
> off, at
> > which point a counter-weight would snap the
> lever
> > back up and turn off the valve," do you?
> >
> > No I don't. But I sure as hell, and I'm not
> > joking, could see a patent attorney trying
> to
> > overturn another patent because it uses this
> two
> > thousand year old technology. I'm not a
> lawyer
> > (nor do I play one on tv, like that other old
> joke
> > goes) but like the old attorney's wheeze goes
> if
> > you throw enough garbage on the wall
> something's
> > going to stick. And I'll bet a lot of juries
> would
> > go for it. If you were a patent attorney
> trying
> > to overturn somebody elses patent would you
> let
> > that one go? On the other hand if you were
> > defending the patent would you fail to bring
> up
> > Hero's original invention in your case to
> support
> > your position that this was merely the
> latest
> > twist on an invention with over 2K years of
> > history behind it?
>
> Let's take a real life example which is more on
> point of Hawass' claim. The Metropolitan Museum
> of Art was allowed by the EAO (the predecessor to
> the present SCA) to make replicas of items in King
> Tutankhamun's tomb to sell during the 1975-1979
> Tutankhamun exhibit. To do this, the MMA had to
> develop its own technology to make point by point
> replicas of specific items, with probably its
> crowning achievement being the replica of the
> goddess Selket from the canopic shrine of
> Tutankhamun (which is about 4 ft high). This the
> MMA sold for about $2500 USD in the 1970's - I
> recall that Kissinger had a copy, as did
> Rockefeller (governor of New York).
>
> Now Hawass claims the MMA cannot make these
> replicas any more as Egypt "owns" the rights to
> the ancient imagery, but quite honestly, I don't
> think he has a leg to stand upon on such claims.

In my humble opinion the Egyptians would probably wind up paying all of the lawyers fees and court costs.
>
>
> The MMA products are exact replicas, but the
> technique used to recreate them was copyrighted by
> the MMA and thus the product (the replicas) are
> also copyrighted to the MMA. As long as the MMA
> does not claim the replicas as the originals,
> which they would not do, I can't see any court
> (patents/trademarks and copyrights are usually
> determined by judge trial, not jury trials, BTW)
> upholding Hawass' claim of "ownership" to the
> design or items (since he personally did not
> create the items replicated), or limiting the
> intellectual property rights of the MMA over the
> methods and creation of these replicas. The MMA
> might decide not to continue the production of the
> replicas, in an effort to foster amity with the
> SCA, but legally they are on solid ground, IMO, to
> continue making replicas.
>
> > I agree 100% but copyright and patent law,
> IMO is
> > being used to choke off invention innovation
> and
> > creativity NOT to foster it. For instance my
> all
> > time favorite was when John Fogerty got sued
> for
> > violating copyright law because he had the
> "look
> > and feel" of John Fogerty of Credence
> Clearwater
> > Revival. Another record comapny had bought
> CCR's
> > and decided to throttle John Fogerty and sued
> him,
> > the result, he didn't produce a thing for
> ten
> > years. Ultimately it was overturned. But ten
> > years? If I had been the judge that case
> would
> > have lasted 10 seconds.
>
> Again, this is not correct: Actually, Fogerty's
> feud was with longtime label owner Saul Zaentz,
> who owned Fantasy Records. Fogerty sued for the
> rights to his Creedence songs, but Fantasy owned
> them. Then in 1985, Zaentz sued Fogerty for
> defamation over the solo songs “Mr. Greed” and
> “Zanz Can’t Dance” and for copyright infringement,
> charging that the new song “Old Man Down the Road”
> copied Creedence’s “Run Through the Jungle.”
> Zaentz won the defamation case, but lost the
> copyright suit.

Like I said he was essentially suing because it had the "look and feel" of a CCR song. So my summation was basically correct.

>
> Fogerty won the copyright case by proving the two
> songs were wholly separate and distinct
> compositions. He brought his guitar to the witness
> stand and played excerpts from both songs,
> demonstrating that many songwriters (himself
> included) have distinctive styles that can make
> completely different compositions sound similar to
> the ear.
>
> Later, John Fogerty sued Zaentz for the cost of
> defending himself against the copyright
> infringement case. Fogerty v. Zaentz became
> precedent when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned
> lower court rulings in 1993 and awarded attorneys'
> fees to Fogerty, without Fogerty having to show
> that Zaentz's original suit was frivolous.
>
> See Fogerty Facts.

But never-the-less he produced nothing for ten years on what was a ridiculous law suit. So my point, that copyright law can be used to choke off creativity, still stands.
>
> > > Further, since Hawass and the Egyptian
> government cannot claim they personally created
> pyramids or other ancient monuments in Egypt, any
> right to patent, copyright or trademark the
> ancient monument design would have expired after
> 15-25 years of creation, according to most
> countries' versions of intellectual property law.
> From the best of interpretations, their "design
> patent" expired millennia ago.
> >> Further, pyramid structures are not
> unique to Egyptian culture alone, as New
> > World pyramidal structures developed
> independently of the Egyptian style, as did
> Chinese pyramidal like structures.
>
> > I tend to agree. However, I recall one
> design
> > patent that was issued of a little mountain
> with a
> > rock rolling away from the tomb of Jesus. So
> there
> > might be some wiggle room in that.
>
> I'm assuming you are speaking of replicas, or are
> you saying someone has recreated the entire
> mountain in which the tomb of Jesus was found?
> Either way, one might argue that since the
> resurrection of Christ, exemplified by the rock
> rolled away from the tomb, is part of the abstract
> tenet of faith, it can't be patented, but the
> product, i.e., a physical replica can be, since
> the techniques for its creation are patentable.

Yes iirc it was a replica, I think it was a necklace, or a little statue that you could put on a table. The person filed a design patent on it. Taking this definition from Wikipedia: In the United States, a design patent is a patent granted on the ornamental design of a functional item. Design patents are a type of industrial design right. Ornamental designs of jewelry, furniture, beverage containers (see Fig. 1) and computer icons are examples of what can be protected with design patents.

Since it was an ornamental design conjured up from their imagination of an historical event that may or may not have taken place, depending on your personal beliefs, I personally don't see any reason why they couldn't patent it.
>
> But Chinese and New World pyramids are not
> "replicas" - that concept arose independently in
> each culture, and without contact with the
> Egyptians (if you think there was such contact
> which led to all pyramids, welcome to the concept
> of hyperdiffusionism . Generally speaking, that
> proposition is not accepted in mainstream
> anthropology or archaeology.
>
> <snip>
> > All excellent questions. In closing. I agree
> with
> > you 100%. I initially thought the idea was
> > ludicrous. I have also seen in my lifetime
> how
> > many utterly, ludicrous, completely bizarre
> ideas
> > became reality. So bearing this in mind I
> thought
> > it was premature to dismiss it out of hand.
> Which
> > brought up my "devil's advocate" post.
> However,
> > seeing how Hawass hasn't followed up with
> any
> > other ideas, I think some copyright
> attorneys
> > might have gotten hold of him. On the other
> hand
> > maybe he just lost interest in it.
>
> I think he often makes outrageous statements such
> as this to see if anyone will jump - and how high.

I agree and we keep jumping and jumping.
>
> Katherine Griffis-Greenberg
>
> Oriental Institute
> Oriental Studies Doctoral Program
> Oxford University
> Oxford, United Kingdom
>
>
>
>
>
> Edited 1 times. Last edit at 01/18/08 12:56AM by
> Katherine Griffis-Greenberg.