Technically, from a legal standpoint, it is "wrong" to say something is
patented when it is not.  But, from a writer's (or reader's) point of view,
to refer to champagne or whisky or whiskey as patented would sound silly,
and maybe that's just what a character needs to do.  I think what Kent's
source wrote should be taken in context, in the sense that the terms have
very specific meanings, not that they hold patent numbers at the Patent
Office.

----- Original Message -----
From: "lindsey johnson" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 3:44 PM
Subject: Re: [PWA-L] patent problem


> So then when the write in the quote that Kent sent us is wrong when he
says:
>
> "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...."
>
> I mean wrong in saying that the terms are patented?
>
> Wayne's World is where I actually learned that.  Funny you can learn
> something from anyone.
>
> >From: Vicky Woodward <[log in to unmask]>
> >Reply-To: Open discussions on the writer's craft <[log in to unmask]>
> >To: [log in to unmask]
> >Subject: Re: [PWA-L] patent problem
> >Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:24:13 -0500
> >
> >Champagne generically is neither patented nor trademarked.  Champagne is
> >merely the name for a sparkling wine produced from grapes grown in the
> >Champagne province of France.  For an excellent and accurate primer on
the
> >subject, refer to Rob Lowe's character in Wayne's World as he describes
the
> >difference to Wayne and Garth.  If something is either trademarked or
> >patented, someone or something owns it.  Now, of course, you can patent
or
> >trademark a particular process or formula for champagne, but that's
> >something different altogether.
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "lindsey johnson" <[log in to unmask]>
> >To: <[log in to unmask]>
> >Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 1:30 PM
> >Subject: [PWA-L] patent problem
> >
> >
> > > "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,
> > >
> > > Lindsey
> > >
> > >
> > > >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*
> > > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail