Humanities desk
< December 9	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 11 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 10

Real income

I'd like to improve the article on real income and I was hoping you could point me in the right direction as far as sources go for that topic.

Thanks. Benjamin (talk) 13:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not really my thing, but I tried a Google Books search under calculation of real income and calculation of real national income and found plenty of results. I don't know if that's what you're after? Alansplodge (talk) 15:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia tune - valid trademark?

How is the Nokia tune a valid Sound trademark when "Gran Vals" (the work from Francisco Tárrega from which it is derived) is Public Domain? If I was one of Tárrega's descendants, I would be furious at the idea of someone stealing his work and making it their own private property. Nokia is certainly entitled to use it, but how do they have right to trademark it? Eliyohub (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A trademark is not a copyright. Nokia has trademarked the tune, they have not copyrighted it. A trademark is an identifier of a company; to avoid impersonation of one company by another, companies have exclusive rights to use a trademark to identify their products. A trademark may or may not be separately copyrighted as well, they are independent concepts. For example, Bass ale's red triangle is a trademark, so only Bass may sell beer with a red triangle. But the triangle is not copyrighted; indeed as a simple geometric shape, it would be ineligible for copyright. --Jayron 32 19:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you sell Bass red triangle water? Liquor? Wine? In a beer-shaped bottle? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The original UK trademark UK00000000001 (yes, the number does mean that it was the very first trademark to be registered in the UK) and the red triangle mark UK00000000914 are only registered for "pale ale". However, the triangle itself UK00001217572, irrespective of colour, is registered for "Wines, spirits (beverages) and liqueurs", and there are a very large number of other trademarks in the Bass (or, rather, Brandbrew S.A.) portfolio. Anyone wishing to sell a product with a mark similar to Bass should consult (a) a lawyer, (b) the trademark registry appropriate to their jurisdiction, (c) the laws on passing off, which may protect such marks even if they're not registered. Tevildo (talk) 10:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VERY intrigued by the history here. How did a beer brewer manage to nab the opportunity to register the VERY FIRST TRADEMARK in the UK? Is there a story here? Eliyohub (talk) 18:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By queuing up outside the trademark registry on the night before it opened, according to this article. A strategy that appears to have worked. Tevildo (talk) 19:34, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Incidentally, it wasn't the first trademark, just the first registered trademark. The first trademark case at common-law was JG v Samford (1584), involving a mercer's mark). Tevildo (talk) 19:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, fascinating. They nabbed both trademark 1 and trademark 2. Just one question: How did the registrar’s office come to be open on New Year? Did Government offices open even on public holidays back then? Eliyohub (talk) 23:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to Public holidays in the United Kingdom, New Years Day did not become a public holiday until 98 years after Bass registered their trademark. The offices would have had no reason to be closed that day in 1876. --Jayron 32 23:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry guys, big goof on my part, I saw the very question I just asked here discussed at Talk:Nokia tune. One notable comment on that page similar to my concerns: "Tarrega must be rolling in his grave over the commercialization of his masterpiece to the point of being annoying." I tried searching for the trademark on the EU IPO office, its [1]. Apparently it was renewed in 2009, and will expire in 2019. Will almost certainly not be renewed again, unless it somehow gets resurrected from the grave. On the International registry, fascinatingly, the trademark is dead - see [2]. It died a quiet death (pun possibly intended) on May 30, 2015, when it was not renewed, and the finality of its demise was confirmed on on December 30, 2015. Viva Nokia tune, goodbye. Rest In Silence. Never again will a new phone ring with you. (Comment your feelings on this development, if you like) Anyone want to update our article? Eliyohub (talk) 23:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Never again will a new phone ring with you. -- if the trademark is really dead, it means new phones of all brands can now ring with the tune. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 23:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic lawsuit against public participation

Hi, in this section the use of anti-SLAPP laws by the government (!) is mentioned. But is this actually realistic? I mean, why should a petition or anything alike be a form of SLAPP the government could claim to oppose to? I don't quite see how that is supposed to work. Thus, I'be very grateful for any explanation! Best regards--Hubon (talk) 23:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]