PWA-L Archives

PWA Inside Talk


Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
lindsey johnson <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Open discussions on the writer's craft <[log in to unmask]>
Thu, 19 Jun 2003 12:30:01 -0600
text/plain (69 lines)
"Just a small point. I've noticed in American
novels that whiskey is referred to when they really mean whisky. The
terms are patented, like champagne, which is why some American rye

Okay my boss says that you can't patent a name, which I know is not actually
what this quote says, but still I know that he is wrong.  It has been too
long since Mass Comm Law.  So please tell me if I am right....

I know that you Trademark a name.  But in talking about Champagne, Whiskey
and Whisky, we are speaking of the generic term for a thing.  Basically a
recipe.  And for these things to be called such they must meet the basic
standards of this recipe.  Bread for instance-flour, water and a leavener.
So what we are talking about is an invention, which is indeed what a patent
protects.  And the generic term represents that invention, which logically
follows is protects by the patent of the object as well. Basically (I like
that word today) it would be like copywriting a book but not copywriting the
title.  Please tell me if this is correct and if there is anything else that
I should add to my rebuttal.

BTW.   I think that American writers have too much time on thier hands if
they are worried about the proper form of Whiskey/Whisky to use.  Unless
that is if they are trying to use this as a technique of chracterization or
setting, in which case thier character would probably be a little bit
pretentious and should explain why he/she will only drink whiskey and not
whisky.  Or if they are writing a book in which the time period and
location--England vs Scottland would matter.  Well actually I guess I can
see a lot situations in which the writer should pay attention to the
spelling.  In general though and modern American writer, writing a modern
American story, for a modern american audience, shouldn't lose too much
sleep over the appropriate spelling.

Please give me input on the patent question.

Thank you,


>From: Kent Graham <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: Open discussions on the writer's craft <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: [PWA-L] [Fwd: Aqua vit]
>Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 13:55:12 -0500
>  ------- Original Message --------
>Subject: Aqua vit
>Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 10:10:15 -0500
>From: "J. Madison Davis" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>I've always been fond of the old spelling "uisquebaugh" or its variations.
>I don't know about the Regency. I know Gov. Alexander Spotswood had a huge
>selection of it on his trip to explore the western mountains of Virginia in
>the mid 18th. Random House dictionary dates it "[1705 15; short for
>whiskybae < Ir uisce beatha or ScotGael uisge beatha, ult. trans. of ML
>aqua vitae lit., water of life; cf. USQUEBAUGH]"
>and it also says that whisky (neat, no e) is used especially for Scotch and
>Canadian, but doesn't say preferred or anything like that

MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*