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