Susan G. Komen Foundation - why so d00shy?

[FF2®]

Originally Posted by freestater

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiffany_Blue

trademarking colors is an evolving thing and in certain instances the courts have ruled that indeed they can be.

Check out Kodak Yellow someday. It's an interesting story.

[Carlton]

Originally Posted by FF2®

trademarking colors is an evolving thing and in certain instances the courts have ruled that indeed they can be.

Check out Kodak Yellow someday. It's an interesting story.

Pass

[Guy Incognito]

Originally Posted by Warfish

(Prostate Cancer is worse, kills more, and gets 1/100000th the attention, thats what I'd donate to.....**** brown colored gloves and hats day isn't on the NFL agenda apparently).

Hey I'm sorry to be a pain and nitpick your argument, but as a healthcare worker, I had to comment on this one. Please take a second and check these numbers. Breast cancer certainly has more deaths, but does have a relatively comparable number of cases compared to prostate cancer. The difference between the two lies in their lethality due to metastases (BrCa >>>PrCa), progression of disease (PrCa is incredibly slow compared to any other cancer) and detectability. Many feel that PrCa is much more common than thought because men do not seek treatment when urinary symptoms arise, and historically during dissections of cadavers in med schools, an enlarged/hypertrophic prostate was extremely common. OTOH, those who encounter a lump in their breast are most probably going to seek treatment.
That said, it's fair to guess that there may be even more cases of PrCa than thought, which would lower its mortality rate.
Personally, my father is in the hospital as we speak s/p prostatectomy (he's fine, don't worry), and having studied cancer genetics, I am much more concerned about pancreas and colon cancers which my grandparents had. I am pretty certain that i'll need a prostatectomy myself (I'm 31), but that doesn't really concern me except for the inconvenience and fear of associated impotence.
Hope this was informative
But just the same I beg of you all, get your sh*t checked!!!
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/types/commoncancers

[shakin318]

Originally Posted by Guy Incognito

Hey sorry to be a pain and nitpick your argument, but as a healthcare worker, I had to comment on this one. Please take a scond and check these numbers. Breast cancer certainly has more deaths, but does have a relatively comparable number of cases compared to prostate cancer. The difference between the two lies in their lethality due to metastases (BrCa >>>PrCa), progression of disease (PrCa is incredibly slow compared to any other cancer) and detectability. Many feel that PrCa is much more common than thought because men do not seek treatment when urinary symptoms arise, and historically during dissections of cadavers in med schools, an enlarged/hypertrophic prostate was extremely common. Those who encounter a lump in their breast are most probably going to seek treatment.
That said, it's fair to guess that there may be even more cases of PrCa than thought, which would lower its mortality rate.
Personally, my father is in the hospital as we speak s/p prostatectomy (he's fine, don't worry), and having studied cancer genetics, I am much more concerned about pancreas and colon cancers which my grandparents had. I am pretty certain that ill need a prostatectomy myself (I'm 31), but that doesn't really concern me exce
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/types/commoncancers

Um...the answer is, um...eleven?

[FF2®]

Originally Posted by Carlton

Pass

I wasn't talking to you.

[Carlton]

Originally Posted by FF2®

I wasn't talking to you.

We never talk anymore......

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by freestater

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiffany_Blue

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_trademark

Would have been a better link tbqh.

And generally speaking, while the "color" is protected, it's more the NAME of the color ("Tiffany" Blue) than the color itself that is protected. But point made.

Blue, the color, is not protected or protectable. If color was so easily controlled, why isn't every color controlled in such a manner by claim-holders or speculators (I got dibs of Jets Green dammit!).

Originally Posted by Guy Incognito

Many feel that PrCa is much more common than thought because men do not seek treatment when urinary symptoms arise, and historically during dissections of cadavers in med schools, an enlarged/hypertrophic prostate was extremely common. OTOH, those who encounter a lump in their breast are most probably going to seek treatment.
That said, it's fair to guess that there may be even more cases of PrCa than thought, which would lower its mortality rate.

No worries on nitpicking, or correcting me if I am outright wrong. I'm wrong often.

The quoted section was a large portion of the basis of my claim (more cases than reported by a large amount due to factors, etc, etc, etc). I won't lie, I'm also biased as to the coverage and attention to Breast Cancer (which men also get, sadly) that Prostate Cancer has yet to get, for many of the same factors and cause underreporting.

But in terms of stats, I happily defer to you as the subject matter expert.

Personally, my father is in the hospital as we speak s/p prostatectomy (he's fine, don't worry),

Glad to hear it, best wishes to him.

Hope this was informative
But just the same I beg of you all, get your sh*t checked!!!
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/types/commoncancers

It was, and agreed.

[FF2®]

Originally Posted by Carlton

We never talk anymore......

And whose fault is that?

[Carlton]

Originally Posted by FF2®

And whose fault is that?

[Fishooked]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Why would my portrayal be "convenient"? I have no horse in the Komen race, as stated.

IP protection is 100% "black and white".

They own an intellectual property. You're (seemingly) angry that they protect it wil money they've received in donations instead of abandoning their intellectual property on an "as per Fishooked good cause" basis. You apparently do not and will not understand that a conscious failure to protect IP often equals abandonment of IP, pretty much, thus voiding ownership of that intellectual property and opening use to others as they, not you, see fit.

What is it you want, exactly, Hooked?

You have the facts, it's up to you to donate or not. Being "outraged" about it is silly, as most charities (you'll find) operate in exactly the same way.

And no, I've never been a victim of IP theft, but I have been involved a few times in protecting certain IP. It's serious business, same as most, and it's not something any legitimate group/business of any kind would "just let it go" for kicks as you appear, best as I can tell, to desire.

So when it comes down to brass tacks, what is your desire here old friend, what do you want to see happen? Simply for them to not protect their IP, and thus spend that money instead of cancer research?

EDIT: Sorry you feel it was a waste of time. I see you completely re-wrote the post, but meh, not going to go back and re-write mine to suit.

In any event, to prove we're still cool (on my end), I present you this gift of a hot girl picture. Enjoy.

Frankly the whole thing just pissed me off, really. Protecting your IP is one thing, but just the way SGK went about it just seems 'wrong to me'.

I think the last thing one someone's checklist on doing a fundraiser is 'checking to see if my slogan violates any trademarks'. Such a thing is Herculean to organize and run to begin with, without having to worry about legal issues etc.

I've actually donated to this charity in the past- (through partnership with my company)-which is probably what set me off in the first place. (Post first, ask questions later I guess). SGK's actually done other things to fall out of favor with a lot of people (including my company) mainly by their own hand. It's also part of the reason my company no longer has an affiliation with them.


(Side note: This is also why you'll see a lot more 'pink' going towards The National Breast Cancer Foundation, American Cancer Society, etc - instead of SGK)

Anyway this prolly belonged in the Poli forum to begin, which is a place Im not comfortable with entering or even visiting. This topic got me far angier and cane-shakier for some reason, and I'd prefer to not let that get the best of me.

In closing, I'd just like to add what I do best - posting URLs

[Fishooked]

Also -

Oh teh irony - got this email from the Jets shop today - I wonder if SGK is going to go after them?

[Big L]

Originally Posted by Fishooked

Also -

Oh teh irony - got this email from the Jets shop today - I wonder if SGK is going to go after them?

I don't understand how you could trademark (is that the right word?) the words "for a cure" or similar. Isn't that like trying to trademark the color pink, like Warfist said before was obsurd?

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by Big L

I don't understand how you could trademark (is that the right word?) the words "for a cure" or similar. Isn't that like trying to trademark the color pink, like Warfist said before was obsurd?

Try creating ad ad campign using the phrase "You're Way, Right Away, I'm Lov'in It!" to describe your restuarant.

Yes, phrasing can be limited in regards to advertising an entity. It only means others cannot us ethe phrase in for-profit activity a la advertising.

As to the Jets for the Cure, I'd wager the Jets (more likely the NFL) has an agreement (MOU) with Komen, i.e. a partnership, legally allowing the teams to use the phrase/color combo. Just a guess.

[Fishooked]

Originally Posted by Warfish

"I'm Lov'in It!" to describe your restuarant.

For the record, those people need to be slain.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by Fishooked

For the record, those people need to be slain.

Agreed.

[Guy Incognito]

Originally Posted by shakin318

Um...the answer is, um...eleven?

You are correct sir!

[Guy Incognito]

Originally Posted by Warfish

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_trademark

Would have been a better link tbqh.

And generally speaking, while the "color" is protected, it's more the NAME of the color ("Tiffany" Blue) than the color itself that is protected. But point made.

Blue, the color, is not protected or protectable. If color was so easily controlled, why isn't every color controlled in such a manner by claim-holders or speculators (I got dibs of Jets Green dammit!).



No worries on nitpicking, or correcting me if I am outright wrong. I'm wrong often.

The quoted section was a large portion of the basis of my claim (more cases than reported by a large amount due to factors, etc, etc, etc). I won't lie, I'm also biased as to the coverage and attention to Breast Cancer (which men also get, sadly) that Prostate Cancer has yet to get, for many of the same factors and cause underreporting.

But in terms of stats, I happily defer to you as the subject matter expert.



Glad to hear it, best wishes to him.



It was, and agreed.

Sounds good, and thank you.... Excuse me fellas, had a science nerd moment.

[frostlich]

Originally Posted by FF2®

trademarking colors is an evolving thing and in certain instances the courts have ruled that indeed they can be.

Check out Kodak Yellow someday. It's an interesting story.

Pffft! Says the guy with the trademarked screen name.

[PlumberKhan]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Try creating ad ad campign using the phrase "You're Way, Right Away, I'm Lov'in It!" to describe your restuarant.

Yes, phrasing can be limited in regards to advertising an entity. It only means others cannot us ethe phrase in for-profit activity a la advertising.

What about for a non-profit activity?