Oh.  That makes sense.  My boss just said that and that it shows that any
idiot can be a writer and it made me mad and I wanted him to be wrong.  But
I guess he is in the sense that he took it literally, which I had not before
he said that you can't patent a name.  Then I think I started thinking too
literally in trying to disprove him.  I guess it is just another case of
be-the-big-person-and-let-it-go.  Damnit!


>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 16:26:16 -0500
>
>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

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus