If you’re new to the site check out our Position Paper (see Important links). It’s a good introduction to what this site is about. If you’d like to be listed as a supporter (About hcagr) please email us.
Comments
We invite comments that add to the depth, interest, and informational content of this blog. Generally speaking, comments should relate to the topic under discussion and should not contain profanity, personal attacks, be redundant, knowingly false, or constitute spam or advertising. We reserve the right to delete or edit posts, and to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events and avoidable. We also reserve the right to be busy with other things and therefore may not be prompt in any action. Please let us know of any errors in fact on the site.
This is a poor poll. It's possible, for instance, that what the college did was wrong but not unprecedented. It's possible that what they did was *legally* right (that is, within their prerogative) but *morally* wrong. It's possible that someone might not know whether what the college did was right--but also not know whether or not they should have consulted the "Founders" first.
There are legal issues here as well--and it's not easy to have an opinion that matters if you don't have the right legal background.
In the end, I'm not sure what you can conclude when the poll is over.
It's hard to judge your tone here. Do I detect what is often (and not quite accurately) called a "rhetorical question"? Are you suggesting that you know what my position is?
In any case, I'm not taking a position on the College's action. I'm merely pointing out that the poll so severely limits the range of answers that it won't get to the heart of the matter.
We do not put forth the poll as being statistically significant. Nor is it a means of explicating the legal, ethical, or administrative issues at work here. That we leave to Greater Minds.
The poll is a neat little gizmo about which we are learning and with which we experiment. Besides, who doesn't like a little audience participation? In other circles it might be called performance art.
Non Insider seems to imply, much as Clairol did with hair color,that only your lawyers can know for sure, and therefore, the unwashed should not trouble themselves with such complexity.
To simplify: you need valid ownership of the intellectual property and intent to use it. The intent part takes the form of sworn testimony. You can't just trademark something as a reservation and then hang around the hoop, so to speak. On a good day you also might like to be in compliance with the policy on intellectual property of the filing institution.
Children learn not to take things that aren't theirs, and scholars not to cut & paste without citation. Or are we missing something?
What, exactly, did the college steal from the charter? The phrase "freedom, democracy, and capitalism"? Hardly grounds for a *legal* suit, I would think: it's been around as a catchphrase for a long time, and I doubt that AHC could claim "ownership." In any case, I'll repeat (for the last time): I'm not in any way taking a position here. I'm only suggesting that the questions are not the right questions. Even a simple
"Did the college do the right thing when it tried to register AHC as a trademark": yes, no, don't know
would have been a lot better, without raising questions about "unprecendented" or prerogative. There are probably a lot of people who think the college was wrong to do it, even though it had the legal right to do so.
I was asking you to put aside technicalities about question wording and tell us whether you consider trademarking of creators' name and words without their knowledge or permission to be the right thing to do.
As we've all come to expect, the hb/HCAGR reaction to the registration of a Service Mark of "Alexander Hamilton Center" with reference to the study of "freedom, democracy and capitalism in the United States", is "SHOOT FIRST, ASK QUESTIONS LATER."
There are many significant questions which need to be answered before one can condemn:
What is the formal arrangement between the College and any individual faculty member?
Is Paquette still on the faculty, or is he leaving/has he left, as someone posting here had implied?
Trademark lawyers, how generic or actionable are the words, "promoting the study of freedom, democracy, and capitalism in the United States, namely, conducting programs in the fields of freedom, democracy and capitalism in the United States"?
Could this filing be an indication of progress in talks between the College and the founders?
Do we know for a fact that the founders were not consulted about this filing in advance (Howard)?
Non-Inside is absolutely right - the poll is absolutely flawed, but if hb wants to have some fun with virtual gadgets, that's his PREROGATIVE.
hb/hcagr did not shoot from the hip...Clear your accumulator and read the facts below...
1. We know what the formal arrangements are between college and faculty re: IP...They are stated in writing and known by all the faculty members..Who owns what when is understood...
2. Paquette is still on the faculty..
3. The words in the college's application were lifted verbatim from the founders' mission statement/charter--generic or not..
4. There are no on-going talks between the college and the founders regarding the AHC..
5. The founders were not consulted or advised re: the college's filing---absolutely known fact for sure...
6. The poll will not decide anything so who cares...The facts here speak for themselves as usual in this saga...
........................... "Determination of Rights to Intellectual Property."
1. The College has an identity or functional interest in the IP. 2. The College directed, or assigned the creators to a project that resulted in the development of the IP. 3. The College and the creators of the work have entered into a written agreement regarding the work. Ownership will then be determined by the terms of the agreement. 4. Development of the IP was funded as part of an externally sponsored research program under an agreement that allocates rights to the College. ...... 0 for 4?
Non-Insider: 'What, exactly, did the college steal from the charter?" How about the name, concept and specific language for starters?
As to precedent, I believe this is unprecedented at Hamilton. Can you provide an example of another such taking? This one seems to be in direct contravention of the extant policy on IP.
Thanks to Your Friendly Consultant for helping out with some facts. Yikes evidently doesn't know who's on faculty, won't take the trouble to find out, and so prefers to publicly and anonymously speculate on someone else's career. Very nice.
There were numerous postings in the past [...deleted by ed...] and he [Paquette]is the only faculty member that I saw whose contact information is essentially hidden on HOLAC. I made no speculation about his career, apart from asking for clarification of prior postings made by persons other than myself.
Whoa! The college filed for "Alexander Hamilton Center", nothing more, nothing less. That it used language from the charter is a separate matter, perhaps plagarism, but with no effect on the name or trademark. Who created and used the name first counts more than the stolen supporting words. Not an expert by any means, but I do have three trademarks in my given name..
1) "Who created and used the name first?" Clearly, the Founders, not the administration or the trustees, created the concept and document.
2) "That it used language from the charter is a separate matter, perhaps plagarism..."
One might suggest a variety of issues including trademark, copyright and the "p" word, ...but you don't need a PhD or JD or a pr consultant to see...well, some would think this an indelicate menu for a college.
Armchair makes a distinction between law and ethics of trademarking. The document below, which I found on Hamilton College website, suggests that trademarking also raises issues of institutional policy and process.
It would seem that the purpose of this trademark is to both damage Pacquette and thwart any attempt to revive the AHC.
Hamilton's claim that they can now somehow trademark something that was discussed and advanced by another group seems to be invalid. However, if they do file such a trademark, then it would be a long, costly law suit for Pacquette and others. The College would use its funds, while Pacquette and others would have to pay such expenses out of their own funds. Needless to say, they would probably sue Pacquette if he used the AHC "trademark."
From plagiarism, to Annie Sprinkle, to this, this dysfunctional institution amazes one on their ability to reach new ethical and moral lows. [ed deleted]
2007: You periodically ask questions like "what's the latest on the capital campaign? Do you do any research on your own????? Do you expect this blog to be your guru servant????? Huh?????
hb
21 Comments
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (21)
There are legal issues here as well--and it's not easy to have an opinion that matters if you don't have the right legal background.
In the end, I'm not sure what you can conclude when the poll is over.
Would you have applied for trademark of their name and words without consulting or informing creators?
The trustees have always loved the idea, but they didn't want Paquette, a loose cannon, to run it.
When negotiations broke down, they probably feared Paquette was going to sell the AHC to another college.
The administration will announce that they acted so to protect the interests of the faculty.
Their mistake was to use language from the charter in attempting to trademark.
That was dumb and probably legally actionable.
It's hard to judge your tone here. Do I detect what is often (and not quite accurately) called a "rhetorical question"? Are you suggesting that you know what my position is?
In any case, I'm not taking a position on the College's action. I'm merely pointing out that the poll so severely limits the range of answers that it won't get to the heart of the matter.
The poll is a neat little gizmo about which we are learning and with which we experiment. Besides, who doesn't like a little audience participation? In other circles it might be called performance art.
Non Insider seems to imply, much as Clairol did with hair color,that only your lawyers can know for sure, and therefore, the unwashed should not trouble themselves with such complexity.
To simplify: you need valid ownership of the intellectual property and intent to use it. The intent part takes the form of sworn testimony. You can't just trademark something as a reservation and then hang around the hoop, so to speak. On a good day you also might like to be in compliance with the policy on intellectual property of the filing institution.
Children learn not to take things that aren't theirs, and scholars not to cut & paste without citation. Or are we missing something?
What, exactly, did the college steal from the charter? The phrase "freedom, democracy, and capitalism"? Hardly grounds for a *legal* suit, I would think: it's been around as a catchphrase for a long time, and I doubt that AHC could claim "ownership." In any case, I'll repeat (for the last time): I'm not in any way taking a position here. I'm only suggesting that the questions are not the right questions. Even a simple
"Did the college do the right thing when it tried to register AHC as a trademark": yes, no, don't know
would have been a lot better, without raising questions about "unprecendented" or prerogative. There are probably a lot of people who think the college was wrong to do it, even though it had the legal right to do so.
I was asking you to put aside technicalities about question wording and tell us whether you consider trademarking of creators' name and words without their knowledge or permission to be the right thing to do.
There are many significant questions which need to be answered before one can condemn:
What is the formal arrangement between the College and any individual faculty member?
Is Paquette still on the faculty, or is he leaving/has he left, as someone posting here had implied?
Trademark lawyers, how generic or actionable are the words, "promoting the study of freedom, democracy, and capitalism in the United States, namely, conducting programs in the fields of freedom, democracy and capitalism in the United States"?
Could this filing be an indication of progress in talks between the College and the founders?
Do we know for a fact that the founders were not consulted about this filing in advance (Howard)?
Non-Inside is absolutely right - the poll is absolutely flawed, but if hb wants to have some fun with virtual gadgets, that's his PREROGATIVE.
hb/hcagr did not shoot from the hip...Clear your accumulator and read the facts below...
1. We know what the formal arrangements are between college and faculty re: IP...They are stated in writing and known by all the faculty members..Who owns what when is understood...
2. Paquette is still on the faculty..
3. The words in the college's application were lifted verbatim from the founders' mission statement/charter--generic or not..
4. There are no on-going talks between the college and the founders regarding the AHC..
5. The founders were not consulted or advised re: the college's filing---absolutely known fact for sure...
6. The poll will not decide anything so who cares...The facts here speak for themselves as usual in this saga...
"Determination of Rights to Intellectual Property."
1. The College has an identity or functional interest in the IP.
2. The College directed, or assigned the creators to a project that resulted in the development of the IP.
3. The College and the creators of the work have entered into a written agreement regarding the work. Ownership will then be determined by the terms of the agreement.
4. Development of the IP was funded as part of an externally sponsored research program under an agreement that allocates rights to the College.
......
0 for 4?
How about the name, concept and specific language for starters?
As to precedent, I believe this is unprecedented at Hamilton. Can you provide an example of another such taking? This one seems to be in direct contravention of the extant policy on IP.
Thanks to Your Friendly Consultant for helping out with some facts. Yikes evidently doesn't know who's on faculty, won't take the trouble to find out, and so prefers to publicly and anonymously speculate on someone else's career. Very nice.
There were numerous postings in the past [...deleted by ed...] and he [Paquette]is the only faculty member that I saw whose contact information is essentially hidden on HOLAC. I made no speculation about his career, apart from asking for clarification of prior postings made by persons other than myself.
Do your homework before you make accusations.
2) "That it used language from the charter is a separate matter, perhaps plagarism..."
One might suggest a variety of issues including trademark, copyright and the "p" word, ...but you don't need a PhD or JD or a pr consultant to see...well, some would think this an indelicate menu for a college.
Armchair makes a distinction between law and ethics of trademarking. The document below, which I found on Hamilton College website, suggests that trademarking also raises issues of institutional policy and process.
http://www.hamilton.edu/college/its/policies_standards_plans/IP_policy_collegeowned.pdf
Hamilton's claim that they can now somehow trademark something that was discussed and advanced by another group seems to be invalid. However, if they do file such a trademark, then it would be a long, costly law suit for Pacquette and others. The College would use its funds, while Pacquette and others would have to pay such expenses out of their own funds. Needless to say, they would probably sue Pacquette if he used the AHC "trademark."
From plagiarism, to Annie Sprinkle, to this, this dysfunctional institution amazes one on their ability to reach new ethical and moral lows. [ed deleted]
pfs
You periodically ask questions like "what's the latest on the capital campaign?
Do you do any research on your own?????
Do you expect this blog to be your guru servant?????
Huh?????