Disney Seeks Trademark On 'Seal Team 6'

The Grim Reefer2 writes "MediaBistro has learned that the Walt Disney Company has applied for a trademark on the phrase 'Seal Team 6,' the name of the special forces unit that killed the world's most wanted man. Disney now owns the exclusive rights to put Seal Team 6 on 'clothing, footwear, headwear, toys, games and entertainment and education services.' Disney made the move only two days after bin Laden's death was announced." According to a report in the Orlando Sentinel, "this is not the first time a company has trademarked SEAL Team 6. Previous owner NovaLogic, Inc., abandoned two associated trademarks in 2006. Those trademarks focused on computer and video gaming."

Comments

They better be MADE in the USA!!!!

[Joe The Dragon]

They better be MADE in the USA!!!!

Re:They better be MADE in the USA!!!!

[ivucica]

Or made in Pakistan

Re:They better be MADE in the USA!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

They better be MADE in the USA!!!!

OMG, Joe - your very first post without a single spelling, grammar or factual error! This is truly a great moment in Slashdot history.

There were many times that many of us with UIDs lower than yours despaired that you'd ever reach this day, but you never gave up.

That single sentence is the result of all those hard years of work and you should be proud of yourself, as we are of you.

Not the real name

[rubycodez]

The Navy's team is Seal Team Six.

But Disney had better not piss off its founder and namer Richard "Demo Dick" Marcinko, that's one bad ass mutherfucker

Re:Not the real name

[rhook]

The team should take that from Disney, this is just beyond insulting and disgraceful. Disney should be ashamed of themselves for profiting off of the actions of our elite special forces.

Re:Not the real name

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. All the technicalities, renamings, and classification levels aside Disney is legal whoring for fame and market share on the backs of folks who put their lives at risk. While technically and legally this may be ok, morally it's travesty and one only hopes that the word gets out and Disney gets some immediate boycott action for this one due to their timing and desire to profit off of the heroism some and deaths of others. That said assuming it doesn't, if they're smart they'll wait until any immediate press dies down and release something under the trademark in a few years when they benefit from the collective memory of the event without the immediacy of their whoring being apparent. Did I mention they were effective whores?

Re:Not the real name

[infolation]

Bad ass septuagenarian mutherfucker

Re:Not the real name

[swalve]

They are just going to make a stupid CGI movie with seals (the "arf, arf, arf" fishes). Does anyone really think they are trying to trademark away the rights of the USN to use that name?

Re:Not the real name

[The Clockwork Troll]

Disney has not done something this unconscionable since they closed the "Gurgi's Treats and Eats" food pavilion in the Magic Kingdom in the 1990s.

The cauldron grows blacker.

Re:Not the real name

[BiggerIsBetter]

Bad ass septuagenarian mutherfucker

He'd still kick your ass.

Re:Not the real name

[OldHawk777]

Another C*O proves to be ghoulish for profits. Ick Chaney and Halliburton put profits before patriotism. They are all sickMFs and the law says they can, just like companies sell the magic fat pills, important FEDERAL TAX INFORMATION .... Disney, Halliburton are global, not local/national, companies that (like many politicians) will sell, take, and FUBAR anything to make their A$$ PHAT.

Re:Not the real name

[Zediker]

I'm no trademark weenie, but how can they trade mark something they don't even own? Thats kinda like Disney trying to trademark United States Air Force... I just don't see how they could do that...

Re:Not the real name

[LordLucless]

Applying for a trademark is the process of claiming ownership. Nobody has ever applied for a trademark on something they own, because until that trademark is granted, they don't own it. As for how they can apply for a trademark they don't currently use, that's pretty frequent. You generally establish those things before you pour millions of dollars into promoting something that could be ripped out of your hands.

None of which excuses Disney's behavior in this particular instance, but the general case is fairly reasonable.

Re:Not the real name

[rhook]

When corporations control the government, profits are patriotic.

Re:Not the real name

[Anonymous Coward]

They have "applied". The USPTO should reject the application on the basis that the term is not trademarkable.

Re:Not the real name

[Anonymous Coward]

No, what they're doing is applying to _register_ a trademark. Trademarks exist anyway, people were writing "Smiths & Son" on products, and relying on the public recognising that mark as a sign of quality before trademarks had legal protection and long before they could be registered. The law of trademark (unlike say, patent) was recognising something that already existed. What's special here about registered trademarks is that you can register the trademark as soon as you think of it, and make the actual product at leisure.

With conventional trademarks the product needs to exist first - your typical court case for a non-registered mark goes like this:
Plaintiff: Since 1940 we've been making Bozingo Pizza. We now own sixteen stores around the city. This guy started up last week, his pizza isn't crispy like ours, and he's ruining our reputation with his "Bozingo's Pizza".
Court: You, defendant, pay these nice people a pile of money and stop using their damn name.

With a registered mark you can do this:
Plaintiff: We had this idea to maybe do a line of space toys, or a baseball cap, or something, with "No Hat Franko" on them. So we got this registration filed six months ago in clothing and children's toys. But we've been busy, didn't get to it, and then we found this on sale!
Defendant: I didn't know anything about this. I just heard somebody say "No Hat Franco" and I thought it'd make a good T-shirt slogan.
Court: Too bad, they have paperwork. Pay them and go away.

  You do have to make the product eventually. If you sit on a mark without using it, eventually the courts will decide you didn't really need a trademark and won't care that you have registration paperwork.

Re:Not the real name

[aliquis]

Disney should be ashamed of themselves for profiting

Doesn't Jobs own Disney nowadays?

Re:Not the real name

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

How is this distinct from, say, video games portraying soldiers in real conflicts? Or even fake conflicts? I there a distinction at all?

Re:Not the real name

[S.O.B.]

Brilliantly cynical. I like it.

Re:Not the real name

[coastwalker]

Disney can go fuck themselves if they do this. I shall spend the rest of my life telling people that Disney deserve to die if they actually get this legal piece of ordure. What sort of society are we living in when a money grabbing litigious private business can create a licence to a non existent government department in order to screw the punters. I am revolted by this news story, maybe the enemies of the united states have a point.
 

Re:Not the real name

[Anonymous Coward]

Renamed or not, maybe the real "Seal Team 6" (the guys that actually did the work that Disney is planning on cashing in on) should "drop in" on Disney's board of directors and "explain" to them why this isn't such a good idea.

Maybe "convince" them to license the name from the USGOV who can then use the funds to pay down the National debt.

Re:Not the real name

[forrie]

I wonder how *anyone* could trademark anything that originates from the United States Government when they are a non-related entity.

Re:Not the real name

[lostfayth]

With all the shitty things that Disney has done in the past, this is the single one that bothers you? I mean, I don't blame you for being annoyed by this action, but only this one?

Re:Not the real name

[Savantissimo]

Agreed. Disney fans are loathsome corporate douchenozzles. Cory Doctorow's hard-on for Disney is one of the reasons I gave up on BoingBoing - that and their censorship, "Antinous'" ideologigal commisariat, Xeni's psycho feminist jihad and Mark Frauenfelder's mercenary exploitation.

Re:Not the real name

[Savantissimo]

Err... that should be "ideological". Also, I'd like to mention that I consider the BoingBoing bastards taste-deficient pseudo-hipsters who should be towed out to sea as a habitat for marine life after they are rendered for their economically important fractions.

Re:Not the real name

[rhook]

No, he is the largest share holder with 7% of the stock though. I would hardly call that ownership.

Re:Not the real name

[rhook]

I'm pretty sure commissariat does not mean what you think it does.

Re:Not the real name

[Donkey_Hotey]

And watch what happens when someone tries to make a live-action movie about their exploits. Do you really think that Disney's simply going to stand idly by and let them do it, or are they more likely to initiate legal action ?

Re:Not the real name

[OldHawk777]

So very MFTrue!

News For Nerds

[Anonymous Coward]

What the fuck is this doing on slashdot? It's not a military story except in the most tangential way.

Timothy, you are the worst fucking editor here, and that is saying a lot.

Re:News For Nerds

[berashith]

actually, the Disney capability of running trademarks and copyrights forever, and purchasing laws to enable this is standard slashdot fare.

Re:News For Nerds

[moonbender]

This is clearly appropriate for Slashdot since it's an intellectual property thing. And why on Earth would you think military stories have a place on Slashdot? Yikes.

Re:News For Nerds

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

actually, the Disney capability of running trademarks and copyrights forever, and purchasing laws to enable this is standard slashdot fare.

Indeed, Disney's well known from taking from the public domain only to permanently copyright the result so as to never give back.

Trademarking "Seal Team Six" is just more of the same, but easier for the hoi polloi to identify as dirty pool.

Re:News For Nerds

[jc42]

What I'd like to know is: How many comedians have already made references to "The US Navy, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Disney, Inc." and other similar jokes?

I'll also be looking for the little "TM" superscripts in news stories about the Seals, complete with footnotes like the above.

Of course, it wouldn't be the first time that people made such jokes. Describing the US Congress as a subsidiary of Such-&-Such Corp goes back a long way ...

Re:News For Nerds

[westlake]

Indeed, Disney's well known from taking from the public domain only to permanently copyright the result so as to never give back.

This is nonsense.

Search IMDB for a title like Snow White or Cinderella and you will typically find one hundred or so variations on a theme -

dating back to the nickelodeon days of 1903.

The Rodgers and Hammerstein Cinderella musical produced for television in 1957. The Jim Henson version from 1970. Cinderella

If you are any damn good at all you don't sit there whining that Disney got there first - he didn't - or that Disney did it better -

which is why you need his art, script, voices and music.

Re:News For Nerds

[perryizgr8]

because nerds like reading about technical things, and military news is almost always highly technical?

Re:News For Nerds

[Anonymous Coward]

This is nonsense.

Search IMDB for a title like Snow White or Cinderella and you will typically find one hundred or so variations on a theme -

No you are just stupidly ignorant.

Pinnochio the book - published in 1883, copyright expires 1939, Disney releases movie in 1940.

The Reluctant Dragon - Published 1898. Grahame was a British author so he didn't get U.S. copyright protection.

Wind in the Willows - Published 1908. Grahame was a British author so he didn't get U.S. copyright protection.

The Sword and the Rose (1953) - Based on When Knighthood Was in Flower published in 1898. Would have entered the public domain in either 1926 or 1954. A 1961 study showed that only 7% of books sought copyright extensions. Considering the popularity of the book there's a good chance it was extended. Perhaps that's why Disney filmed and originally published The Sword and the Rose in the U.K. It was published in the U.S. in 1956.

The Jungle Book - Published in 1894. Would have entered the public domain no later than 1940.
--
Just a short list of examples of Disney taking from the public domain but not contributing back.

Re:News For Nerds

[martin-boundary]

No. Military news is almost always American(*), and slashdot has a large American membership. It's a natural fit.

(*) The USA is the most militarized country in the first world.

Re:News For Nerds

[perryizgr8]

i dunno. i'm not american but i like reading about us military tech.

Re:News For Nerds

[I(rispee_I(reme]

"This is nonsense."

This is my understanding of the situation, and if I'm wrong, someone will correct me:

Every time Steamboat Willy would enter the public domain, Disney lobbies and procures a copyright extension. As a result, copyrighted works as a whole constitute a larger body of work relative to the public domain, since everything published since Steamboat Willy has its copyright protection prolonged when the copyright extensions are passed.

If the public domain is the village well, Disney is capping it and charging for water in collectible bottles.

Re:News For Nerds

[jgtg32a]

And nerds like things that go boom

Parasites

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we just take a can of RAID (or a bat) to these guys like we would any other pest?

Re:Parasites

[jmcharry]

Mickey has grown into a very bad rat. I would recommend warfarin.

Re:Parasites

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck yeah, Slashdot's first raid! Let's the the old GNAA back together and troll the shit out of them. All the network admin who work for large companies that they refuse to name can launch DDoS's off of work computers and claim a virus monster attack. Our expert programmers that are so well informed that there expertise extends to things like educational policy and patent law can hack into their gibsons and destroy all their data. The very few that are left will have to be content with sit ins at Disney Land, spreading the word in a calm, unbiased manner, just like Slashdot headlines. We shall set the time of attack at 2000 hours, Slashdot time on 5/20/11 (that's 20/5/11 for you people who always feel the need to inform us that you are not American).

Re:Parasites

[Nyder]

Mickey has grown into a very bad rat. I would recommend warfarin.

blood thinner? how does that help anything?

Does Mickey have blood clots?

Re:Parasites

[GCsoftware]

It's a rat poison.

Technicality

[gman003]

Technically, there is no current unit called "SEAL Team 6". The unit formerly known by that name is now the United States Naval Special Warfare Development Group, AKA DEVGRU. Further, as DEVGRU is a Tier One Special Operations Force (the other one being Delta Force), they may not officially exist, in that no official records of them are kept. Finally, some sources are saying that the unit has been yet again renamed, this time to something classified. Thus, Disney (and anyone else, probably) could register a trademark on the name, and DoD wouldn't object (as they seem surprisingly versed in the Streisand Effect).

Re:Technicality

[rubycodez]

it was SEAL Team Six, not 6, but it was also was called ST6.

Re:Technicality

[gman003]

This is English, not C. "Six" == 6.

Re:Technicality

[rubycodez]

This is about trademark, and I can assure you under trademark law 6 != six

Re:Technicality

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

it was SEAL Team Six, not 6, but it was also was called ST6.

The Undiscovered Country.

Re:Technicality

[Anonymous Coward]

This is English, not C. "Six" == 6.

Actually, this is trademark law we're dealing with, so the EXACT representation is totally relevant. In this case, 6 is not the same as "Six".

Re:Technicality

[Anonymous Coward]

"Delta force" hasn't been called delta force for some time now. They call it CAG Combat Applications Group.

Re:Technicality

[gman003]

I know that, but I figured I shouldn't nest a side-comment within another side-comment. Too LISP-ish.

Re:Technicality

[Kreigaffe]

And I can assure you that under trademark, under Disney, Mikey Moose == Mickey Mouse

Re:Technicality

[nacturation]

But if this were PHP, "6" == 6.

Re:Technicality

[gman003]

That sounds suspiciously like legal advice.

Re:Technicality

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if you're a moron that can't tell the difference between an opinion on a tech website, and advice given to you in a nice comfy lawyer's office by your own lawyer.

Re:Technicality

[AK Marc]

Advice means a recommendation on a course of action. There was no course of action listed that I saw, so it couldn't have been "advice" legal or otherwise.

It's bad enough when people can't get complex technical terms right, but you screwed up the word "advice."

Re:Technicality

[Canazza]

but "6" !== 6

Re:Technicality

[M. Baranczak]

The Muppet Show did one episode with Mickey Moose and Ronald Duck. And I don't think they got in trouble for it.

Re:Technicality

[somersault]

Like anyone's gonna mess with Animal.

Re:Technicality

[quickgold192]

Being that the majority of military patches incorporate some sort of trademarked pop culture icon, I doubt the DoD really cares what Disney does or trademarks.

Re:Technicality

[hitmark]

Iirc, Disney owns The Muppets now...

Also, i think that falls under the concept of parody.

Re:Technicality

[seven of five]

Whether it exists or not is irrelevant. Snow White doesn't exist either. All that matters is whether enough people think they exist under that name, and want merch badly enough to pay Disney a premium price for the illusion.

Re:Technicality

[FiloEleven]

I've always wondered something about PHP: does B===D?

Re:Technicality

[Anonymous Coward]

"United States Naval Special Warfare Development Group, AKA DEVGRU"

It's dark in here. You're likely to be eaten by some monster that's bad at acronyms.

Re:Technicality

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes and no. 6 != six. But it's certainly easy to confuse the two, and easily confusable trademarks can be rejected or contested. If the DOD really did own the mark "SEAL Team Six", then Disney's attempt to register "Seal Team 6" would possibly be objectionable (depending on the products being trademarked and the general liklihood of confusion between the two).

and Yes, IAAL, so this isn't completely out of my ass...

Re:Technicality

[Anonymous Coward]

In that case, are words like micro$oft possible to trademark?

Re:Technicality

[z917183]

Hmmm - I suppose so. But then technically, it is not America - it is 'the United States of America'. Oh no! I should not have said that! Now Disney will want to trademark both of those too! :P

Re:Technicality

[Anonymous Coward]

I just think it's a bad decision to trademark any name associated to a very professional group of soldiers, unless the person doing this at Disney was an ex-SEAL or something.

Re:Technicality

[MartinSchou]

it was SEAL Team Six, not 6, but it was also was called ST6.

At least they weren't called SEAL Team Delta ...

Re:Technicality

[Pharmboy]

sub trademark{
  if ($MickeyMoose =~ $parody){
    undef $MikeyMoose;
    &threaten;
  }
  else {
   $MickeyMoose = "Mickey Mouse";
    while (1>0){
      &sue;
    }
  }
}

Re:Technicality

[DinDaddy]

Iirc, Disney owns The Muppets now...

Only as of a couple of years ago. It was a licensing agreement with Henson Assoc. before that.

Re:Technicality

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't SG-6 the one that was always being ambushed by the Goa'uld?

Seal team six hasn't existed for quite some time

[markass530]

It ceased to exist 1984ish I believe.

How far?

[guygo]

How far can that go? Can they get "101st Airborne"? How about "U.S. Army"? Seems pretty slippery...

Excuse me but

[rossdee]

The US Navy has the rights to the name. Did they sell the rights to Disney?

Re:Excuse me but

[jedidiah]

Quite so. Even if this unit doesn't exit, the SEALs in general are a part of the US Navy. Disney shouldn't be able to exert ownership rights over something like that. They should get slapped down by the relevant authorities with a big fat "You don't own that!" sort of response.

Re:Excuse me but

[FiloEleven]

I think the water-based mammals might have prior art on this one.

Maybe that's actually what Disney is after. They can tell the heartwarming tale of how the intrepid seals sought out and foiled "Anemone Ben" Ladin, head of the Al Stingya troublemakers, in his coral compound. (Hell, the real thing was called "Operation Neptune Spear!")

Re:Excuse me but

[warGod3]

Do they? What about Delta Force?

Re:Excuse me but

[lennier]

(Hell, the real thing was called "Operation Neptune Spear!")

Cue Aladdin/Little Mermaid crossover sequel in three, two...

Unusual in this age of Political Correctness

[qubex]

I cannot help but feel that inviting the possibility of retribution over a matter of intellectual property from a Navy SEALS unit, however remote, should be cause for caution.

I’m also somewhat surprised that a global firm with such an obsession for it’s public image as Disney would do something as unilaterally endorsing as promoting a single nation’s military. Surely some marketer in their ranks is concerned this will affect sales of Mickey Mouse in Saudi Arabia?!

Re:Unusual in this age of Political Correctness

[rolfwind]

I heard that Disney or parent company is invested in pornography. You give the parent company a different name who sells this stuff, and most people won't be any the wiser.

Re:Unusual in this age of Political Correctness

[bjourne]

One would guess that the number of Disney buying "USA! Fuck yeah!" screaming types outnumber the numberof Saudis buying Mickey Mouse by a ratio of at least 2 to 1....

Re:Unusual in this age of Political Correctness

[qubex]

I’ve read much the same. Maybe we read Neal Stephenson’s “In The Beginning Was The Command Line” or something like that? Might that be it?

Re:Unusual in this age of Political Correctness

[l0ungeb0y]

"I’m also somewhat surprised that a global firm with such an obsession for it’s public image as Disney would do something as unilaterally endorsing as promoting a single nation’s military."

Considering that Disney created propaganda films for the US Gov't during WWII and Walt was one of the most fervent supporters of Joseph McCarthy, this move is actually very much in line with Disney's track record.

Re:Unusual in this age of Political Correctness

[mobby_6kl]

Don't know about pornography, but Disney did buy Miramax to release such kid-friendly movies like Clerks, Pulp Fiction, Trainspotting, City of God, and many others.

Re:Unusual in this age of Political Correctness

[Theaetetus]

I cannot help but feel that inviting the possibility of retribution over a matter of intellectual property from a Navy SEALS unit, however remote, should be cause for caution.

I cannot help but feel the fact that you believe a US military unit has a remote possibility of attacking US citizens should be greater cause for caution.

Re:Unusual in this age of Political Correctness

[alfs boner]

Considering that Disney created propaganda films for the US Gov't during WWII

Which, give or take, was 70 years ago.

and Walt was one of the most fervent supporters of Joseph McCarthy,

Both of whom have been dead for a long time.

this move is actually very much in line with Disney's track record.

That's not much of a "track record" you've cited there.

Seriously?

[drwhite]

Disney of all companies...makes me sick. So instead of creating/selling cartoons that promote religious overtones, they want the right to sell clothing that symbolizes snatch and grab commando crap. Really messed up.

Re:Seriously?

[qubex]

Yes... and doesn’t it amuse you that somewhere in their ranks, there’s a marketer stewing in anger that his dire warnings of the effect this might have on Mickey Mouse sales in Saudi Arabia have gone unheeded?

Walt Disney?

[Haedrian]

What?

Are they planning some sort of characters involving a team of Aquatic Mammals?

Re:Walt Disney?

[_Sprocket_]

It's G-Force all over again. Somewhere there's a niche community of fanboys that will be really upset.

Re:Walt Disney?

[jcwayne]

It'll all be part of the new Abbottabad Pavilion at Epcot Center. Osama bin Laden will be executed twice Sunday-Thursday, 4 times Friday-Saturday. Following the assault reenactment, dead Osama and Seal Team Six will take pictures and watch porn with the kids.

Hmm .. Disney copyrights the name

[OzPeter]

But remind me again .. who are the people with the clandenstine hit teams that can go anywhere in the world and visit not-nice-things on anyone?

Re:Hmm .. Disney copyrights the name

[Megahard]

Disney copyright lawyers.

Re:Hmm .. Disney copyrights the name

[RobertM1968]

Disney copyright lawyers.

Dammit! I've got mod points, and I cannot figure out whether to mod you insightful or funny... there should be a combo-mod or something that allows both at once... perhaps "+1 Insightfully Funny" or "+1 Humorously Insightful" (which would be the one I think applies to your post).

the WH will need Disney's permission next time

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless a secret agreement was made with Roy Disney after 9/11 to allow Seal Team 6 to undertake overseas kill missions w/o Mouse approval.

US govt products are public domain?

[decora]

anyone who spends enough time on wikipedia will understand that most products of the US govt are public domain under copyright law. im thinking that trying to trademark a US government moniker is going to run right into that issue of IP Law. taxpayers are who put up the money for government entities to exist and thus theoretically they (the public) own it.

Re:US govt products are public domain?

[king neckbeard]

This is actually a trademark thing, not a copyright one, but since this is the name of an actual organization, I would think they couldn't get strong protection here, if any.

Re:US govt products are public domain?

[hoboroadie]

Disney always compensates for weak standing by having egregiously aggressive and unscrupulous lawyers.

Re:US govt products are public domain?

[rohan972]

egregiously aggressive and unscrupulous lawyers.

... as opposed to the other kind of lawyers.

Re:US govt products are public domain?

[Richy_T]

The incompetent ones? Those are the ones I seem to get.

What do you expect?

[Fujisawa Sensei]

What do you expect from a company who's mascot's a fucking rat?

Re:What do you expect?

[msauve]

What do you expect from a company who's mascot's a fucking rat?

Mickey's not a rat, but is a rodent. More interestingly, Disney supports slavery. Did you ever wonder why the dog Goofy is Mickey's peer, but the dog Pluto is his slave?

Re:What do you expect?

[king neckbeard]

Obviously, because "four legs good, two legs better"

Re:What do you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

If Pluto is a slave, maybe you also feel the need to lead dogs everywhere to rebellion. Pluto is very clearly a pet.

Re:What do you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

Names don't mean shit, he's still a rat.

Doesn't Valve Own It?

[Interfect]

AFAIK, "SEAL Team 6" is already in use. It's the name of one of the character models you can be in Counter-Strike: Source.

Re:Doesn't Valve Own It?

[pjt33]

Trademarks are domain-specific. FPS character models aren't in the same domain as clothing, so that's irrelevant to this application.

Re:Doesn't Valve Own It?

[Compaqt]

Is that the same thing Disney would say if someone came out with a Mickey Mouse FPS character?

Re:Doesn't Valve Own It?

[dwillden]

How about Prior art for T-shirts http://www.zazzle.com/seal_team_6_motto_tshirt-235772284366239824 or http://www.zazzle.com/osama_bin_laden_dead_shirt-235715864026736127 The first one is dated from last year. The second one claims a created date one day before the Disney Filing. Both are directly for clothing.

Re:Doesn't Valve Own It?

[pjt33]

Trademarks are also not patents. Prior art isn't irrelevant, but its relevance is limited. If a survey of people's word associations shows that they link a phrase to your brand, you have a good case for registering it as a trademark.

Re:Doesn't Valve Own It?

[lostfayth]

No, because Disney already owns the trademark which would apply to videogames. In the case that they did not, it would probably be covered by copyright law and derivative works. I am not a lawyer, but this seems pretty clear.

Seal Team Sex

[Anonymous Coward]

So, now Penthouse is going to have to make a movie called "Seal Team Sex". Really Disney? Can't we stick to mermaid porn?

My... My... My...

[phrackwulf]

The possibilities for creative mayhem with this are just delightful! I hope Charlie Sheen gets to voice Donald Duck in the animated movie! M...I....C.... "Wax you real soon" K... E....Y... "Why, because you're one dead Taliban!" M.....O....U.....S.....E.....!!!!! Got to go, off to think up radio call signs for Goofy, Minnie and Uncle Scrooge.

Re:My... My... My...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm ... anyone else wondering if Minnie shaves her pussy?

Re:My... My... My...

[Anonymous Coward]

The possibilities for creative mayhem with this are just delightful! I hope Charlie Sheen gets to voice Donald Duck in the animated movie! M...I....C.... "Wax you real soon" K... E....Y... "Why, because you're one dead Taliban!" M.....O....U.....S.....E.....!!!!! Got to go, off to think up radio call signs for Goofy, Minnie and Uncle Scrooge.

This patent has military-industrial brand crossover written all over it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmILOL55xP0

Re:My... My... My...

[colinrichardday]

Why would a mouse own a cat? :-)

Re:My... My... My...

[qubezz]

Why would a mouse own a dog? :-/

Re:My... My... My...

[Pfhorrest]

Why would a mouse own a dog? :-/

Easy: to protect itself from cats. (Cat eats mouse, but dog chases cat, and mouse owns dog).

Re:My... My... My...

[Anonymous Coward]

Masterchief! You just head-shot one of the biggest villains in the war on terror! What are you going to do next?

(Hi mom!) I'm gonna go to Disney World!

No no no.. GOD no!

[Dutchmaan]

I can't even imagine the kind of crap Disney would pull with "Seal Team 6"

/announcer voice

"When the a cute little Eskimo boy's village is threatened by an evil (russian) mastermind threatening to destroy the Arctic with his oil drilling, the boy finds help the only way he knows how... *cue music and seal sounds* A grand adventure. A story of companionship and peril. Walt Disney Pictures in cooperation with the United States Navy presents: Seal Team 6"

Re:No no no.. GOD no!

[ColdWetDog]

No, that's the A-Team. Don't you know anything?

Re:No no no.. GOD no!

[MightyMartian]

Don't forget that you have to have a singing polar bear voiced by Celine Dion a pair of clownish Arctic Foxes voiced by Johnny Depp and John Goodman.

It's not something for the US to be proud of.

[Gordonjcp]

I f you wanted rid of Osama bin Laden, then do it properly. "Accidentally killed"? "Buried at sea"? Yeah, right. You didn't think that maybe - just, *maybe* - it might have been a good idea to do it properly, have some proper justice, and close the book finally on the guy?

You fucked up, America, and no amount of shouting and chest-beating is going to fix it. You shouldn't be proud of it. Ask the Israelis why.

Re:It's not something for the US to be proud of.

[Dutchmaan]

I f you wanted rid of Osama bin Laden, then do it properly. "Accidentally killed"? "Buried at sea"? Yeah, right. You didn't think that maybe - just, *maybe* - it might have been a good idea to do it properly, have some proper justice, and close the book finally on the guy?

You fucked up, America, and no amount of shouting and chest-beating is going to fix it. You shouldn't be proud of it. Ask the Israelis why.

I'm curious as to what your idea of "do it properly" was?

Re:It's not something for the US to be proud of.

[Anonymous Coward]

"You shouldn't be proud of it. Ask the Israelis why."

What the do the Israelis know about proper behavior ?

They deserve to be cut loose from US support, period.

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

Re:It's not something for the US to be proud of.

[bertoelcon]

I'm curious as to what your idea of "do it properly" was?

IMO: Even the Nazis got the Nuremberg Trials. Granted several committed suicide beforehand, but the trials still happened.

Re:It's not something for the US to be proud of.

[hey!]

It's not about pride, it's about cashing in, or preventing a rival from cashing in, or both. We saw that last week when Karl Rove went on the air criticizing Obama for taking credit for the work of the SEALs, then going on to brag that he had a "personal relationship" (yuck) with some members of SEAL Team Six. Disney is just as unseemly but predictable here.

In any case, I haven't heard anybody official claim Osama was "accidentally killed". Nor have I seen any explanation of the orders and rules of engagement the commando team was operating under. Nor have we any idea whether the man who shot Osama was following those orders. Not that orders excuse anything, but they can shed light on a thing. For example, if the orders were, "kill, even if he surrenders," then I think everyone involved would be guilty of murder. But we have no reason to believe that. I do think the orders with respect to killing Osama should be made public; the fact that they haven't make me think that either (a) they would cause diplomatic or political problems or (b) they weren't followed correctly but nobody wants to deal with that.

The SEAL who shot certainly showed presence of mind in wounding Osama's wife rather than killing her, but I wouldn't ask anyone to put his life at risk for Osama, no matter how small that risk was. Not unless he had put himself in our custody. So if the orders came down to "... if he doesn't surrender immediately, shoot him," I'd be completely OK with that.

Re:It's not something for the US to be proud of.

[Anonymous Coward]

Rachel Corrie was a "useful idiot" for the Palestinians and radical Islam who wish to commit genocide against the Jews and carry on Hitler's dream of completely wiping out the Jewish people.

She might as well have been wearing an "American Dupes Support Auschwitz" T-shirt.

She wasn't killed by Israelis. She was killed by her own stupidity & ideological blindness

The Arab countries could have given the Palestinians their own land at any time before Israel was created. They told the Palestinians to get stuffed. But now that there are *gasp* Jews(!!) there, they can't race to support the Palestinians fast enough.

The Palestinians need to STFU before the Israelis decide that they'd rather deal with the ruckus caused by them coming in with tanks, troops, and phalanxes of giant bulldozers and push everything in Gaza and the West Bank into the sea. Frankly, I'd cheer the Israelis on.

Re:It's not something for the US to be proud of.

[camperdave]

First of all, capture. Not kill.
Second, extraction to undisclosed location.
Third, trial
Fourth, execution if convicted
Fifth, burial at sea

Everything videotaped, nothing procedural hidden.

Re:It's not something for the US to be proud of.

[AK Marc]

Since there is standard equipment with video recording for military units, I'd have had those issued, rather than choosing to purposefully have no video of any of the operation.

I'd have notified our allies that to send over a representative so that someone could have independently verified the identity.

I'd have had some Arabic observers around for oversight, and I would have let them watch the live video feeds and verify the identity of the body.

Instead, there was no identification of the body, no report of how he died, no body to have anyone else examine, no stored samples of DNA, no fingerprint cards taken at the time of death, and no proof that anything the US has said regarding the operation is true. And there were lots of ways to fix that and the US chose to do none of them.

Re:It's not something for the US to be proud of.

[Anonymous Coward]

Rachel Corrie was a "useful idiot" for the Palestinians and radical Islam who wish to commit genocide against the Jews and carry on Hitler's dream of completely wiping out the Jewish people.

Yeah, far too many people are unaware that much of the Muslim/Arabic world were allies of Hitler during WW2, due in large part to their shared hatred of and desire to wipe out the Jewish people.

Look up Amin Al Husseini. The Palestinians are simply a cat's paw for Muslim Arabs to attempt to finish the work they and Hitler started in WW2.

I'm waiting for the Liberal/Progressive Western MSM to fire up the propaganda-machine to start spreading the "Gee, Hitler wasn't such a bad guy...he was just a misunderstood victim of Western Zionist propaganda" lies.

Re:It's not something for the US to be proud of.

[AK Marc]

So they run a bulldozer and someone purposefully hiding gets run over, and that's bad? It was a very slow bulldozer heading in a straight line that she sat there and waited for it to kill her. Sounds more like suicide than an international incident to me. They tried 8 times to clear the suicidal rich white Americans out of the area (very far from the white suburbia they grew up in and apparently hated so much they'd rather go to the middle east to commit suicide). She purposefully concealed herself so as not to be removed. And was then run over as she sat in the path of a slow moving bulldozer traveling in a straight line.

Sounds more like an entry for the Darwin Awards than anything that should affect US policy. Or does it not matter when they kill Palestinians, but one cute white American girl and we should go nuts?

Re:It's not something for the US to be proud of.

[BlueStrat]

Sounds more like an entry for the Darwin Awards than anything that should affect US policy. Or does it not matter when they kill Palestinians, but one cute white American girl and we should go nuts?

Oh no, not at all.

The world gets it's collective panties all in a knot when a Palestinian launching rockets at civilians or a Liberal/Progressive American idiot supporting them gets killed.

Israeli families and children being murdered is OK however, no matter the means or circumstances.

Frankly, I'm amazed the Israelis have shown the restraint they have by not completely and utterly wiping out the West Bank & Gaza.

How do you think that'd work out if the Israeli/Palestinian roles were reversed? I'd be betting there would be a Wiki entry for the "Second Holocaust".

Strat

Re:It's not something for the US to be proud of.

[jc42]

Since there is standard equipment with video recording for military units, I'd have had those issued, rather than choosing to purposefully have no video of any of the operation.

I've read any number of news stories that claimed the Seals had the video equipment and it was running. Dunno whether this is true of not, of course, since I wasn't there. But a lot of news people seem to believe that there are videos of much of the assassination. If so, they might be declassified in 20 or 30 years ...

Re:It's not something for the US to be proud of.

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone not convinced of your Jewishness need only look to your sig.

Enjoy your weekend.

Re:It's not something for the US to be proud of.

[MightyMartian]

But the central actor didn't have a trial, and the disposal of his body is even more shrouded in mystery than bin Laden's. The Soviets intentionally muddied the waters of what happened to El Nazi Numero Uno for the same reason the Yank's dumped bin Laden over the side of a ship, because they wanted to make sure that there was no place, no remaining physical presence for supporters to rally around.

Re:It's not something for the US to be proud of.

[BlueStrat]

Anyone not convinced of your Jewishness need only look to your sig.

Enjoy your weekend.

[sarc]
Jesse Jackson, is that you?

A fine example of tolerance, open-mindedness, and a non-bigoted world view.
[/sarc]

One need not be Jewish to know that Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty and given more people a higher standard of living than any other system ever tried. Even China has been forced to acknowledge that fact. One also need not be Jewish to recognize an ignorant bigot. You must be one of the "enlightened, open-minded, and tolerant" Liberal/Progressives.

I'll say a prayer for you that you may become a better, less hateful & bigoted person.

BTW, I'm not Jewish. I'm intellectually honest. I *have* been called a "mensch" a time or two by those who are Jewish, though. :)

Strat

Re:It's not something for the US to be proud of.

[AK Marc]

I can't believe there aren't videos. However, the official statement is that there are no videos, not that there may be some but that information is classified. Something being classified doesn't ession give the right to lie about it. If Congress were to have a session about it and swear someone in under oath and they knew there were classified videos, they'd be committing a crime to not answer "yes, but they are classified" when asked about them.

So, either the US is incompetent in not taking videos, or the US is a liar for not telling us about them, even if they weren't released. Either way a large amount of incompetence was displayed by those involved (not the guys doing the actual ground work, but just about everyone else even tangentially involved).

Re:It's not something for the US to be proud of.

[L0rdJedi]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/movies/2010/07/oliver-stone-hitler-israel-chavez.html

Re:It's not something for the US to be proud of.

[Dhalka226]

Members of the U.S. Navy SEAL team that attacked Osama bin Laden's Pakistani compound were wearing helmet-mounted digital cameras that recorded the mission, a U.S. military official told CNN Friday. -- http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/05/13/pakistan.bin.laden/index.html?iref=allsearch

You'll have to move your indignant rage to a different issue. I have every confidence that you will find one promptly.

Re:It's not something for the US to be proud of.

[c6gunner]

I'd have had some Arabic observers around for oversight, and I would have let them watch the live video feeds and verify the identity of the body.

Movie night at the white house! Popcorn provided, bring your own baklava.

Re:It's not something for the US to be proud of.

[Deus.1.01]

so...are we going to hold SS Wiking

Re:It's not something for the US to be proud of.

[Deus.1.01]

Did someone say "lebensraum"?

No really, it is this kind of nationalist posturing that defined the fascist movements, but i guess its not ethnics cleansing if the people that lives there REALLY deserves it!

Re:It's not something for the US to be proud of.

[Have Brain Will Rent]

Nuke them form orbit?

Re:It's not something for the US to be proud of.

[AK Marc]

Then my indignation is over the initial release stating there was no video.

At this point, the US have proven themselves liars about what happened. So how can we believe any one part (that they verified it was Osama) when they also released that they had no video of the incident (later contradicted by this unnamed "official").

Re:It's not something for the US to be proud of.

[alfs boner]

I'd have notified our allies that to send over a representative so that someone could have independently verified the identity.

I'd have had some Arabic observers around for oversight, and I would have let them watch the live video feeds and verify the identity of the body.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha *inhales* ahhhh ha ha ha haa ha ha ha hah ha...

I wonder if anyone ever trademarked this ...

[Anonymous Coward]

People working at Disney used to call it "Mouseschwitz". I wonder if anyone ever trademarked that? You could sell a lot of t-shirts to ex Disney people.

Easy Solution

[Greyfox]

Send Seal Team 6 'round to Disney to have a bit of a chat about it. I'm sure that'd sort it RIGHT out.

Beautiful South - One God

[Hazel Bergeron]

This reminds me.

Like a toupee on a fading fame,
Final whistle in a losing game,
Thick lipstick on a five year old girl,
Makes you think that’s it’s a plastic world.

Plastic world were all plastic too,
Just a couple of different faces in a dead-mans queue
The world is turning Disney and there’s nothing you can do,
You’re trying to walk like giants but your wearing Pluto’sshoes.

And the answers fall easier from the barrel of a gun,
Than it does from the lips of the beautiful and the dumb.
The world won’t end in darkness it’ll end in family fun,
With Coca-Cola clouds behind a Big-Mac sun.

Howling scream in a church asleep,
Rusting bicycle in the ocean deep,
Like an earring on a newly born,
Strong perfume on a winters morn.

The world is perfumed and were perfumed as well,
Petals from a flower that blossomed in hell.
You can’t breathe the air through the thickness of the smell,
And you can’t see the hair through the grease or the gel.

And the answer falls easier from the barrel of a gun,
Than it does from the lips of the beautiful and the dumb.
The world won’t end in darkness it’ll end in family fun,
With Coca-Cola clouds behind a Big-Mac sun.

Re:Beautiful South - One God

[Anonymous Coward]

You keep humping that chicken, now, y'hear

Re:Beautiful South - One God

[Anonymous Coward]

What does that song with nonsensical lyrics being sung by those who can't sing have anything to do with this? Can I have 4:18 of my life back?

Re:Beautiful South - One God

[Anonymous Coward]

This Video features content owened by UMG and is not available in your country, Sorry :(

Re:Beautiful South - One God

[Anonymous Coward]

Love The Beautiful South. Usually in small doses, so I can give it full consideration. Thanks for the link.

Re:Beautiful South - One God

[mustPushCart]

I dont know what this song has to do with the story but its a really good son. So half of you all mod parent off topic, other half mod him informative

Geez....

[king neckbeard]

You guys do know that the Walt Disney Company encompasses far more than just things labeled Disney, and not all of those endeavors are G-rated, right?

Re:Geez....

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever heard of Touchstone and Jerry Bruckheimer?

I can see exactly where this is going.

Re:Geez....

[MightyMartian]

I can see exactly where this is going.

Ashley's Anal Adventures?

Re:Geez....

[drinkypoo]

You guys do know that the Walt Disney Company encompasses far more than just things labeled Disney, and not all of those endeavors are G-rated, right?

You do know that Britney Spears was a Mouseketeer and now performs stripper moves on stage in front of little girls on behalf of a label owned by Sony, right? I mean, she's not the only little whore that Disney raised, but she's the first one who comes to mind.

This kind of sneaky sexuality is of course pervasive in American culture; the first toy ever marketed directly to children was Barbie, who is based on a cartoon about a prostitute. That's right, the primary icon of American commercialism is a pedo whore.

you can abide by the rules of war

[circletimessquare]

or you can abide by the rules of civil justice

you can't have it both ways

Re:you can abide by the rules of war

[stjobe]

So either the Geneva Convention or a trial then?
Seems the US decided to take the third choice; make sure nobody sees what goes on and claim "resisting arrest". Classic.

Re:you can abide by the rules of war

[circletimessquare]

osama bin laden chose war on civilians in peacetime. why do you wish to grant to him a courtesy he denies the thousands he murdered? what purpose do you think is served?

 

Re:you can abide by the rules of war

[stjobe]

Because the US is supposedly civilized, and it's the civilized thing to do?
Because a trial, even if we all know the outcome, is mandated both by the Geneva Convention and civil law?
Because dragging him in front of a court, letting him have a fair trial, and meting out the punishment would be justice?
Because invading a sovereign country to assassinate someone is NOT justice?
Because shooting him in the head with no witnesses creates more questions than it answers?
Because killing him and getting rid of the body makes it look like a plain old murder?

There's lots of reasons if you start with the supposition that the US is a civilized state that is out for justice and not just revenge.

Re:you can abide by the rules of war

[circletimessquare]

you are assuming that taking bin laden alive was ever an option. not by what the usa wants, but by what osama bin laden wants. you assume the usa is 100% in control of the means and manner of his apprehension. if it cannot bring him in to try him, then the usa will kill him. or would you prefer letting him continue his murderous ways because apprehending him is not 100% certain? i am telling you: try to apprehend him, and if you can't, kill him. because trying him is not an option ACCORDING TO OSAMA BIN LADEN'S WISHES. osama bin laden facing apprehension will do what? quietly acquiesce? are you that fucking stupid?

osama bin laden is dead rather than being tried. ok. why do you think this state of reality is 100% the responsibility of the usa? why do you not see osama bin laden's choices in this reality? why do you blame the usa for what a murderous asshole chooses? what the hell is wrong with you? why are you unable to understand the nature of a man like osama bin laden? are you naive or stupid or both?

Re:you can abide by the rules of war

[stjobe]

Lots of assumption about what I do or not to do aside, there's the small issue that according to the reports he was shot twice - in the chest and in the head.
Now if there was any intention of taking him alive, why the second shot in the head?

Several reputable news sources on all sides of the political spectrum categorize the operation as a "kill operation", several citing a US "national security official" claiming there was no desire to capture Bin Laden alive.

This might be why people are reacting, since that's not really what a civilized state should be doing. Again, justice not revenge.

Re:you can abide by the rules of war

[circletimessquare]

capture if possible was a mission parameter. consult your news sources again

not that they probably tried very hard. not that i hold that against them. because unlike you i realize the difficulties of the situation they were under, and that their target was intent on making himself a martyr. capture was a vanishing slim possibility. not because of the usa, but because of bin laden. you do realize that right?

the problem with people like you is you don't have high standards. you have ridiculous standards. you think your high holy indignation from these ridiculous lofty standards are supposed to mean anything. well it does mean something: you like to tweak your ego from on yonder high, content with yourself in your knowledge you would do things so much better. yes, you would, if the real world allowed your ridiculous standards to ever be achieved or adhered to

why don't you try delivering your easy armchair ego-tweaking judgments in the land of the living someday, rather than from your ivory tower of superiority that no one, not even you, if you had any intellectual honesty about you, can adhere to

thank you for passing judgment which serves nothing but your own smug self-satisfaction. it certainly doesn't have any real world value, to anyone with an intellectually honest grasp on the reality of the situation of bin laden's hideout

Re:you can abide by the rules of war

[stjobe]

You stated: "you can abide by the rules of war or or you can abide by the rules of civil justice you can't have it both ways".
I said that both of these require a trial. No attempt seems to have been made to bring Bin Laden to a trial, so therefore I said that the US seems to have gone with the third option, ignoring both the rules of war AND the rules of civil justice.

You seem to have a problem with these statements, so I wonder which of them you object to?

And as an aside, you can continue with your personal attacks and insults if you like, but be advised that they are largely ineffective. I simply don't care about your (ill-informed) opinion of me, so if you don't mind I'd rather you stick to the subject at hand - whether the US did or did not abide by the rules of war and/or the rules of civil justice and what that means for public opinion.

Re:you can abide by the rules of war

[circletimessquare]

in civilian life, never mind wartime, policemen, or even citizens, are allowed to use lethal force when confronted with lethal force. if a cop shot a bank robber in his hideout, with a gun by the bank robbers side and his cohorts shooting at him, would you say that the state failed to deliver the bank robber to a court room? would you condemn the cops, and the state, because it was unable to produce for you an outcome which was unlikely to happen? would you prefer the state and police to leave bank robbers free? is that superior than attempting to capture them, and killing them, unfortunately, when they refused to comply?

likewise, bringing osama bin laden to a courtroom was, agreed, the most useful resolution to his capture, but, and this is where we part ways, between my understanding of reality and your fantasy life: bring bin laden to a courtroom was a highly unlikely occurrence, considering bin laden's own choices and motivations in the scenario where he is confronted

so this is where we part ways: i see how unlikely it would have been to capture the man, as the seal team would have been met with force, and bin laden would try to kill himself or others. meanwhile, you wish to condemn the seal team and the usa for not giving you an outcome that if you had any intellectual honesty about you, you would see was highly unlikely to happen, considering the type of person we are talking about

but that doesn't stop you from condemning the usa. meaning you are not interested in valid moral judgment here. if you were honest, you would admit that osama bin laden would have done everything to avoid capture, including choosing his own death and the death of others. that you do not include that most likely outcome in the formulation of your criticism of the usa's actions, simply means you are not engaging in intellectually honest thought

you don't have to like the usa, the usa has done plenty wrong in this world. but your dislike of the usa should ideally, for your own sense of logical coherence, be based on solid criticisms, not choosing unrealistic scenarios over realistic ones as the basis for your judgments, revealing that you care more about an agenda than reality

oh, sorry, almost forgot, as an aside: that makes you a dishonest asshole. you obviously chooses politics over a true sense of justice, exactly as you charge that others lack in that department. you feigned inability to grasp the most likely scenario we are dealing with here is too transparent

when you actually show allegiance to the higher principles you criticize the usa on, even as you choose political recrimination over those supposed high principles of yours that you betray, then we can have an honest discussion. until then, you're just a transparent intellectually dishonest asshole in my eyes, a hypocrite

Re:you can abide by the rules of war

[stjobe]

likewise, bringing osama bin laden to a courtroom was, agreed, the most useful resolution to his capture

I'm glad we agree on this, because that was my one and only point. The rest you've supplied yourself, along with a very interesting and detailed psychological profile of me - normally you'd have to pay good money for that, so thanks :)

Both according to the rules of war and the rules of civil justice, the goal should have been to bring Bin Laden to a courtroom. We both know this didn't happen. You seem uninterested in probing further whereas I question whether it was ever the intention.

And in this case, intention matter. It's no revelation that people resist arrest and that sometimes things go wrong and people get killed, but that has to be the worst-case scenario, not the intended scenario if we are to call ourselves civilized.

From what I can read of this operation, capture wasn't the main objective. It wasn't "go capture Bin Laden" but "go kill Bin Laden". And that's an assassination. It's revenge, not justice. That's setting aside both the rules of war and the rules of civil justice.

He deserved to die, no question about that, and I'm not shedding any tears for anyone that died in that compound on that day, but I would have preferred justice. Not revenge.

Re:you can abide by the rules of war

[circletimessquare]

"Both according to the rules of war and the rules of civil justice, the goal should have been to bring Bin Laden to a courtroom. We both know this didn't happen. You seem uninterested in probing further whereas I question whether it was ever the intention."

capturing bin laden was a vanishingly small possibility. this is reality. because of bin laden's motivations, having nothing whatsoever to do with whatever the usa intended. if you were intellectually honest, you would admit this. as it is, you choose political agenda over realistic judgment, and so you are transparent and worthless to the search for justice and truth. you betray your own self-stated principles

Re:you can abide by the rules of war

[stjobe]

No matter how small the possibility, capturing Bin Laden should have been the intention. Bin Laden's motivations don't really come into play here unless you assume either that US special forces teams cannot take someone alive if they're under orders to, or that Bin Laden in fact shot himself. Both assumptions seem rather weak to me.

We all know shit happens. That's why I have no issue with the fact that the US killed Bin Laden - that's just a historical fact by now. What I am questioning is the motive behind and the intention with the raid - because if they went in with orders to capture Bin Laden and shit happened and he ended up dead, that's fine. But if they went in with orders to kill Bin Laden and no intention of bringing him to justice, that's just murder plain and simple - and again it's against both the rules of war and the rules of civil law.

I don't know about you, but I'd much prefer the US to stick with one or the other.

Re:you can abide by the rules of war

[circletimessquare]

"No matter how small the possibility, capturing Bin Laden should have been the intention. Bin Laden's motivations don't really come into play here"

i stopped reading here. capturing bin laden WAS the intention. but you do understand he was violently captured, right? you do have some idea what that entails, right? either you are purposefully intellectually dishonest about the parameters of that situation, or you're an idiot who can't understand them. which is it?

Re:you can abide by the rules of war

[stjobe]

Reuters: "The U.S. special forces team that hunted down Osama bin Laden was under orders to kill the al Qaeda mastermind, not capture him, a U.S. national security official told Reuters."

CBN News: "U.S. special forces set out to kill Osama bin Laden and dump his body in the sea to make it harder for the al-Qaeda founder to become a martyr, U.S. national security officials told Reuters on Monday. "This was a kill operation," one of the officials said."

CDN: "During the May 3rd interview of CIA director Leon Penetta by NBC Nightly News’ Brian Williams, Mr. Penetta all but admitted that killing Osama bin Laden was the intent of the mission."

The Telegraph: "Several US national security officials have briefed that there was in fact no intention to capture bin Laden, contrary to Mr Brennan’s statement. “This was a kill operation,” one official said. "

That was from 30 seconds on google, I'm sure you can find more if you want. These statements from US officials are why I'm questioning the motives of the operation - and so should you, my friend.

Re:you can abide by the rules of war

[circletimessquare]

The U.S. Navy SEAL team that killed Osama bin Laden Sunday in Pakistan would have taken al Qaeda's leader in alive if it was possible, White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan said Monday.

"If we had the opportunity to take bin Laden alive, if he didn't present any threat, the individuals involved were able and prepared to do that," Brennan told reporters during a press conference.

Brennan told reporters that the White House thought bin Laden would likely resist capture but that taking him alive was considered a "remote" possibility.

"We were not going to put our people at risk," Brennan said. "The president put a premium on making sure that our personnel were protected, and we were not going to give bin Laden or any of his cohorts the opportunity to carry out lethal fire on our forces."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20058913-503544.html

the quotes you have stem from the realizations outlined above: capture is ideal, but highly unlikely, so kill is acceptable

now, at what point do we get some intellectual honesty from you and hear you admit how im-fucking-possible it would be to capture bin laden in the situation's parameters without any risk to the SEALs involved? out with it, asshole. or is it that i'm not dealing with an intellectually honest person?

you wish to think that capturing bin laden in the situation's parameters was a possibility? you wish to bleieve that? because it's reality? or because it adheres to your political prejudices?

Re:you can abide by the rules of war

[stjobe]

What you seem unable to understand is that I have no issue whatsoever with what actually transpired, I'm fine with Bin Laden being dead - the world's a better place now that he's gone.

However, that doesn't mean I'm okay with state-sanctioned assassinations, and that's why the mission parameters become important. If the orders were to go in and kill Bin Laden, that's an assassination and something we shouldn't be doing. If the orders were to go in and capture him and he ends up dead from resisting, that's A-OK. I don't know what's so hard to understand about this.

Now, from the reports I read the Seal team shot one of Bin Laden's wives (the only other person in the room) in the leg to incapacitate her, but Bin Laden himself got shot in the head (twice, "to make sure he's dead", if you want to believe some reports). I find it strange that they were unable to incapacitate Bin Laden and bring him to justice.

Again, if the orders indeed were to capture Bin Laden and he ended up dead anyway - shit happens and that's fine. But "capture him if he waves a white flag, otherwise kill him"? As you yourself clearly state, how likely was that? If those were indeed the mission parameters, then I do think that's akin to "go in and kill him". Everyone knew beforehand he wouldn't give himself up.

I'm sure you won't understand it this time either, and we won't know since the mission orders will never be published, so at this point I'll be happy if we could just agree that the US shouldn't be performing state-sanctioned assassinations. Rules of war or civil justice, remember?

Re:you can abide by the rules of war

[circletimessquare]

i'm not agreeing with anything until you give me an idea of how likely you think capturing the man alive was

you think his wife is the same sort of threat as a seasoned al qaeda fighter? in the few minutes before pakistan intercepted the incursion, in an environment full of unknowns, in the dark, with who knows what booby traps, arms placements, hostile personnel, or other threats... capturing him is a possibility? really? you really wish to continue taking that joke seriously? how much additional threat to the lives of the SEAL team is acceptable to you to pursue a dubious goal? are you willing to risk the al qaeda asshole's escape, just to avoid the typical easy criticisms of armchair analysts like yourself?

on the slightest suggestion capture is sketchy: kill the fucker, and weather the holier-than-thou tut tuts from armchair ivory tower types like yourself. thanks for your cheap easy judgment from afar. you certainly have an inflated sense of the value of your weak judgments, especially with the ease with which your shoddy house of cards of thinking is discredited. pfffffffffft

to me you seem to think that it was possible, probable to capture him. to me this makes your reasoning skills suspect, that your political prejudices are trumping your ability to perceive reality here. you also won't admit that capturing him was indeed the ideal and the intent of the usa. you wish to say the usa clearly intended to kill him only, not capture him. when the reality is of course capturing him was a remote possibility. so you wish to ascribe the failure to capture, to intent, when the failure to capture is clearly due to conditions on the ground. how am i supposed to respond to you except to look askance and wonder at how and why your reasoning skills have been sublimated by your politics?

so no, i'm sorry, the only agreement here is that you choose your political agenda over a grasp on reality. this means to me you are not morally or intellectually honest. a hypocrite, because you wish to continue to prosecute the usa for not living up to the highest standards when in your own rhetoric you yourself won't do that. your intent is to condemn the usa. which is fine, condemn the usa if that's important to you, the usa has done plenty wrong in the world. but if you base your condemnation on creative jumps of faith in your preformed prejudices, rather than a sound reading of reality, what do you want me to do except lose all respect for you? you are not an intellectually honest person. you freely choose to suspend your perception of the conditions on the ground in the moments of his confrontation. you condemn the usa for not living up to standards of behavior you freely defile yourself in your rush to judge based on your prejudices. the sum total of your words to me is a picture of hypocrisy, no more: condemn the usa for not living up to the highest standards of behavior, while you yourself freely choose lower standards of behavior in how you suspend your perception of reality in order to assuage your political prejudices. to hell with you

Re:you can abide by the rules of war

[stjobe]

I'll make this short, maybe that'll make it easier to understand for you.

* What happened, happened. Bin Laden is dead, and that's good. It would have been better to have him stand trial before being executed, but it's a bit late now.
* If the orders were to "capture if possible, kill if necessary", that's fine and good. Both the rules of war and civil justice require us to seek justice, not revenge.
* If the orders were "kill", that's assassination, and not good. It ignores both the rules of war and civil justice.
* Reports differ what orders the team had.

This is the only thing we differ on - you seem okay with a kill mission, I don't think that's okay. It is the responsibility of the civilized state to seek justice, not revenge.
If, in the pursuit of justice, shit happens, that's fine because the intention was to seek justice.
Sending a strike team with "kill" orders isn't justice, it's just revenge.

Do you see the difference at all?

Re:you can abide by the rules of war

[circletimessquare]

i'm not ok with a kill mission. but unlike you i realize a kill mission is better than nothing, and a capture mission fails. it's about the reality of the situation, not intent. you wish to condemn based on intent, when intent wasn't driving what happened, the reality of the situation was. got it?

"It is the responsibility of the civilized state to seek justice, not revenge."

absolutely 100% correct. and as soon as you show me a situation where revenge was freely chosen in formative intent over justice, then you have a point. but seeing as the bin laden situation does not fit that mandate, the value of your words, your perceptive abilities, and your judgment has been found lacking

Re:you can abide by the rules of war

[stjobe]

We do agree then, good. A kill mission is not okay, a capture mission that fails and ends up with a kill is okay.

Now all that remains is the question whether the mission in question was or wasn't a kill mission. Some sources say it was, some sources say it wasn't. I guess we'll never know the truth.

If you bother to read through our little discussion again I think you'll find I never said that I question the outcome of the mission, only the intent. It was, and remains, my single point of contention that the US as a civilized nation should follow either the rules of war or the rules of civil justice (as you put it), but that on the face of it it seems that they chose to ignore both.

Re:you can abide by the rules of war

[circletimessquare]

so you are saying we can't know intent, but you are going to assume bad intent and pass judgment based on that?

hypocrisy. because you clearly have bad intent yourself. you are not an impartial person. you are unfit to cast judgment

Re:you can abide by the rules of war

[stjobe]

I'm not assuming anything.

I read statements from US officials saying it was a "kill operation" with "no intention of capturing Bin Laden". That's not okay.
I read statements from US officials saying it was an operation with intention of capturing Bin Laden. That's okay.

You've already yourself cast judgement on kill missions, saying they're not okay, I don't get why you're so upset that I'm agreeing with you.

Re:you can abide by the rules of war

[circletimessquare]

it is a kill operation, since a capture operation is impossible. it doesn't mean that if capture becomes possible- if bin laden is all by himself in an empty room without any weapons and doesn't put up a fight, that he is still killed. capture is, was, and always will be the best option. but anyone who is a realistic who needs to plan and execute this operation understands that it is going to be a kill operation out of the range of possible scenarios that will inevitably confront the SEALs. got it?

you wish to imagine that everyone in command just wanted to kill him, to hell with capture. they understand why capture is best. they also understand they need to go into the operation with a realistic appraisal of what they are going to confront

you wish to imagine that bloodlust overwhelms reason here

no, operational parameters overwhelms idealism here. understand yet?

Re:you can abide by the rules of war

[stjobe]

No, I don't "wish to imagine" anything. That's a strawman and you know it.

We've already agreed that the US should abide by the rules of war or the rules of civil justice. We've already agreed that a kill operation abides by neither.
That's why the stated intention of the operation is important.

If the intention is capture, that is fine, even if he ends up dead.
If the intention is kill, that is not fine.

We've gone over this a few times already. There have been US officials stating that there never was any intention of capturing Bin Laden. That is wrong and you've already agreed it is.

I find it hard to believe a capture operation was impossible - and if it was, I question why they went ahead with the mission, seeing as it's then just a kill mission. An assassination, plain and simple. Something we both agree the US shouldn't be doing.

You said you were against kill operations, but yet you lambaste me for saying I think it's wrong? Where's your vaunted intellectual honesty?

Re:you can abide by the rules of war

[circletimessquare]

i showed you the link where the officials said capture was the ideal

but when it comes to planning, you plan for what is most likely, not in fantasy land. so you talk about killing him, out of practicality. you do understand the difference between idealism and realism, right? you want to send the SEALs in there with a workable plan or a wish and a charm?

you continue to assume the worst intentions, when the only problem is the bad scenario

your judgment is without merit, it is based on prejudice and impossible standards

Re:you can abide by the rules of war

[stjobe]

And I showed you several links where officials said the orders were to kill not capture.

Why are you turning such a blind eye to the idea that the US might have carried out an assassination? It wouldn't be the first time, you know, and never a more satisfying target.

Re:you can abide by the rules of war

[circletimessquare]

hmmm, why would i turn a blind eye to something that "might have" happened, according to your political agenda, rather than a realistic reading of intentions and motivations, also quoted in the media? hmmm

Disney Being Disney

[deweyhewson]

Disney's entire business plan has been based on taking other people's work/ideas/creations and capitalizing on them for their own profit. They've been that way since the beginning. (Go ahead, go count all the original ideas Disney itself has ever had. I'll wait.)

So that being said, I can't say I'm surprised by this, although I do think this is a new low (based on the obvious bin Laden connection), even for them.

Education services?

[Culture20]

I can see people being gung-ho and wanting to wear "official" SEAL Team 6 clothing with Disney's Princess Castle in the background, but what's up with "education services"?

... the fuck?

[Kreigaffe]

copyrighting something that already exists as an entity wholly separate and apart from the holder of the copyright.

Neat.

So I suppose someone could file a copyright on "FBI"? Or "POTUS"? And that would fly?

Nothing broken here, nope, nothing at all.

Re:... the fuck?

[failedlogic]

That's what I've been trying to figure out. How are they able to Trademark this? Has Disney or its affiliates at any time in the last 25+ years made anything in reference to ST6. I remember when I was a teenager in the early 90's reading or hearing about ST6. So how can you trademark that name?

Re:... the fuck?

[TapeCutter]

Has Disney or its affiliates at any time in the last 25+ years made anything in reference to ST6.

Does Apple have an orchard? - Trademarking ST6 is more a matter of bad taste than bad law.

Re:... the fuck?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but you could patent a method to keep morons from confusing patents and trademarks...

Re:... the fuck?

[Anonymous Coward]

And of course I meant "patents, copyright, and trademarks" -- patent a device to stop morons like me from accidentally words and you'll be rich.

Re:... the fuck?

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright and Trade Mark are different

If anybody, Marcinko owns the name

[Animats]

If anyone is entitled to the name, it's Dick Marcinko. He was the first commanding officer of the team he named SEAL Team 6. (There were only two teams at the time; naming it 6 was a deception.) After he left the Navy, he wrote a number of novels about SEAL-type exploits.

Disney is way out of line here.

Re:If anybody, Marcinko owns the name

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not true at all. Since he was a servicemember at the time of the creation of Seal Team Six, the DoD would have more legitimate right to the name. Just like how none of the members of Operation Neptune's Spear will see the bounty for OSL.

Re:If anybody, Marcinko owns the name

[Anonymous Coward]

Disney is way out of line here.

Hahahahaha! Like they care. But Disney have a lot of the right people in their pocket... so this may just fly. And then they'll try to extend it to anything with "SEAL" in it, you watch and see.

Other than that, after the Bin Laden operation, the phrase "SEAL Team Six" has become world-famous, and is thus generic, and thus un-trademarkable. But who is going to spend the time and effort to contest it?

Re:If anybody, Marcinko owns the name

[Anonymous Coward]

Doom on you Disney, time to shoot, loot and scoot

Time for a new Shirt

[LWATCDR]

Seal Team Six
We are no Micky Mouse operation!

What

[Anonymous Coward]

A company shouldn't be able to obtain a trademark on something like this. Nor should an individual, for that matter.

So will they sue some Trek fans?

[The Archon V2.0]

Because there's some Trek fans who had designed a fanon Maquis Seal Team 6 logo that (inadvertently) appeared on German TV before Disney got their grubby rat paws on anything related.

Re:So will they sue some Trek fans?

[dwillden]

Hmm, doesn't that somehow make it Paramout IP first? :)

Mind your own business Disney

[Andy Smith]

Tell you what Disney, when your executives are ready to put their lives on the line to kill terrorists, then you can have a trademark for whatever you call your elite unit. Unti then, just stick to making cartoons and mind your own business.

Re:Time for a new Movie!

[BlatantRipoff]

Starring Justin Bieber as Private Pyle and Zac Efron as Sergeant Carter!

Excellent market positioning

[Jeremi]

When you think of brains splattering against the wall, think of Disney!

How can they do this?

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

How can disney trademark an existing, already established name?

Its like disney trademarking the phrase "President of the United States"

What gives Disney the right to be able to trademark something that is OWNED by the US government and its people?

Re:How can they do this?

[pilot-programmer]

Easy - they just decide they are above the rules, file the paperwork and fee, and hope the USPTO is dumb enough to grant the trademark. In 2007 they filed a trademark application for the name "Princess Aurora". If you are uncultured you may think there's nothing wrong with trademarking Sleeping Beauty's name, but if you know ballet at all then you know Tchaikovsky gave that name to the lead role in his Sleeping Beauty ballet back in the 19th century. If the USPTO is stupid or corrupt enough to award that trademark, then no ballet troupe or school in the United States will ever be able to perform Sleeping Beauty without paying Disney for their permission. Never mind that they took the public domain character from Tchaikovsky's work, or that most of the music in their 1959 animated movie was composed by Tchaikovsky, since Princess Aurora was a character in their movie they think they have total right to that name!

Re:How can they do this?

[L0rdJedi]

Probably because "Seal Team 6" doesn't officially exist, is not an official designation (hasn't been since the mid 80s), and is known by the Pentagon as DEVGRU. Just because you keep hearing it called Seal Team 6 doesn't mean that's the actual name.

In short, Disney (or anyone else) can trademark anything they damn well please. It'll be up to the courts to decide if they can hold onto it.

Re:How can they do this?

[Richy_T]

You have been killed by a DEVGRU?

Disney sold Miramax back to the Weinsteins

[tepples]

Disney sold Miramax back to the Weinsteins (with the help of a bunch of VCs) in 2010.

Disney is already planning

[Boawk]

a fifth sequel to their yet-to-be-released aquatic mammal basketball flick.

New venture.

[Anonymous Coward]

Disney will now be associated with para-military group and armament.
Kids will love their M16 with the Disney logo on it!
And for girls, there is still the pink flamethrower.

Trademark != Copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

You gain copyright when you create something that counts as a work of art. You gain trademark when you announce that you (might) intend to create a product/productline/etc. relevant to some name, want exclusive rights to do so and are willing to pay the assosciated fees. You don't need to invent something in order to trademark it.

That said, I doubt this trademark would hold in court. Even if you own a trademark, you lose it when enough people begin associating it with the type of product in general, not just your company (see "aspirin"). I think that it would be easy enough to prove that most people assosciate Seal Team 6 with something entirely else than any Disney product if it would ever be taken to court. At least, that's the case at the moment. If disney makes a movie called Seal Team 6, it's entirely reasonable that others won't be allowed to make a movie under that name or sell merchandise relevant to that movie...

Re:Trademark != Copyright

[dwillden]

What happens to people producing products under that name and in that market before the Trademark was filed for? Such as folks at Zazzle selling ST6 T-Shirts for at least six months before Disney filed.

New from Disney!

[Anonymous Coward]

New from Disney, a comedy film for the whole family!

SEAL TEAM 6: Since his father's death, Josh Framm has become increasingly withdrawn. Even playing army, once his passion, scarcely seems to matter. His worried mom moves the family to a small town near in Alaska, hoping that a fresh start will revive Josh. But he doesn't fit in well at military school, and his unfocused attitude pull's his unit's ranking down. Until he finds Buddy, an abandoned harbor seal who can snipe a penguin off an iceberg from 2000 feet with an MK11, better than any wild seal has a right to. With Buddy at his side, Josh finds the courage to come out of his shell around othe...r kids. Buddy becomes the school mascot and inspired by the seadog, the kids come together into a cohesive, well-oiled unit. But everything comes crashing down when Buddy's owner, a nasty party clown named Osama Bin Laden, shows up to claim his seal...

Re: No no no.. GOD no!

[Anonymous Coward]

>"When the a cute little Eskimo boy's village is threatened by an evil (russian) mastermind threatening to destroy the Arctic with his oil drilling, the boy finds help the only way he knows how... *cue music and seal sounds* A grand adventure. A story of companionship and peril. Walt Disney Pictures in cooperation with the United States Navy presents: Seal Team 6"

Wouldn't that be Seal Team Two? Aren't they the ones that do Arctic warfare?

entertainment at its finest

[Anonymous Coward]

disney lawyers negotiating with the real seal team six would make a great 15 sec of reality tv

Osama Team 1

[martin-boundary]

Strange. For some reason, the trademark on Osama Team 1 is still available.

Maybe it was to block others

[Anonymous Coward]

is it far fetched to think that there might just be people working for Disney that want to make it so no one else can use the name Seal Team 6? Maybe they just want to own the rights and never use them?

Changes in the Disney version?

[Anonymous Coward]

What changes will there be to the shooting of Osama in the Disney version? Will they turn the guns into walkee-talkees or something?

Military + NASCAR?

[lexsird]

Lets just have sponsors for the military now. We can have our troops wear corporate emblems. It should have been the Pepsi team that got him, right? Or do you think that the Chevy team should have? (whacking bin laden)

Re:Military + NASCAR?

[MightyMartian]

Tonight's Special Forces assassination is brought to you by Folgers, good to the last drop.

How would this affect a existing domain?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://sealteamsix.net/ has been around since 2003... what if they made shirts?

Oh, OK, I get it...

[gbutler69]

so it disappeared into the toothy jowels of rabid rats caged upon its face!

Cheaters

[hoboroadie]

Well known dirtbags, not to be trusted.

WTF does this have to do with Mickey Mouse?!?

[geekmux]

Seriously, what exactly does Disney have a need whatsoever with a name like that?

I can hear the storyline now (cue Duke Nukem voice)..."Six Dwarfs...they used to be seven, until one of their own was murdered by the wicked witch...Together, they will avenge their brothers death. They are...Seal Team Six."

Hey, gotta re-write Snow White in SOME way that appeases the MMORPG generation...

Re:WTF does this have to do with Mickey Mouse?!?

[Anarchduke]

Sgt. Grumpy loves demolition work

Re:Lawsuits

[hoboroadie]

Disney's business model is more dependent on legal chicanery and blatant fraud than SCO. I knew some of their employees back in the '90s and they were all fucked over as well. You'd think their management were Scientologists or something.

Convoluted reactions

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no SEAL team six to have a copyright violated.

The "creator" of the team? guess what govt property either way, and they disavow. what makes you think the "creator" would argue...

It was a smart move, to copyright a unique phrase ... the company is doing right by its shareholders.

you do know corporations make profits at all cost, even profit? and if they are people would be sociopathic murderers?

k then

Re:Modding

[Anonymous Coward]

AFAIK, funny doesn't affect karma, so if it's both (bravo!) then I'd lean toward insightful, unless it's posted AC.

how fucking stupid can you get???

[sribe]

...the Walt Disney Company has applied for a trademark on the phrase 'Seal Team 6.... Disney now owns the exclusive rights...

Well, which is it?

Re:how fucking stupid can you get???

[mysidia]

Well, which is it?

Both. It's a "trademark" now that they have applied. Filing the application secures their rights to the mark, even though they haven't technically been awarded the trademark registration.

That is the status is now "Trademark of Disney" but not (yet) "Registered trademark of Disney"

Short of another entity, paying a large administrative fee with the trademark office, and filing opposition paperwork, Disney has as good as gotten the mark.

Getting a mark requires exclusive use in commerce, but Disney is all set there -- as the mark was not used in commerce prior to their application, noone will be in a position to file opposition papers against them.

And if someone else besides Disney starts trying to use the mark in commerce after the application (but before Disney is awarded the final registration papers), it's possible they will be sued over that; so Disney does now have "exclusive right" to the mark.

Assuming it is not found that the mark is invalid/not claimable, for example, if it is too generic (which doesn't seem to be the case 'Seal Team 6' is a unique name of a specific thing, rather than a generic name).

Re:how fucking stupid can you get???

[sribe]

Filing the application secures their rights to the mark...

No, it does not.

Short of another entity, paying a large administrative fee with the trademark office, and filing opposition paperwork, Disney has as good as gotten the mark.

Well, one hopes there will be opposition. Personally I don't consider $100/$300 to be very large.

Getting a mark requires exclusive use in commerce, but Disney is all set there -- as the mark was not used in commerce prior to their application....

Right. Disney has not yet used it in commerce. Therefore they had to specify "intent to use" as the basis for their application, and no registration can issue until they can demonstrate actual use, and that requires a subsequent application. Also, for the application to even be considered legitimate at this point, they must "have more than just an idea but are less than market ready"--seems like it would be pretty easy for someone to object on those terms ;-)

And if someone else besides Disney starts trying to use the mark in commerce after the application (but before Disney is awarded the final registration papers), it's possible they will be sued over that; so Disney does now have "exclusive right" to the mark.

No they do not. As of now, they have no rights whatsoever to the mark. The point of my original post. They may have rights relatively soon, but not yet--not until they use it in commerce.

Re:how fucking stupid can you get???

[mysidia]

No they do not. As of now, they have no rights whatsoever to the mark. The point of my original post. They may have rights relatively soon, but not yet--not until they use it in commerce.

Ok... what do you think will happen if you or I start using the name "Seal Team 6" in commerce today or on Monday; for a line of T-shirts, and maybe a 30 second Youtube video clip and 30-second for pay blurb, before Disney can?

Assuming Disney hasn't used it in commerce yet. Will they withdraw their application? Will the PTO refuse such a large corporation with such highly paid lobbiests, and probably no qualms against pushing a little money under the table? For some reason, I doubt that.

Trademarking the dictionary

[WaffleMonster]

Can I just apply for a trademark on every combination of every possible word and get it over with? It is rediculous people are allowed to do this.

Re:Trademarking the dictionary

[dwillden]

You could, but last month I filed a patent on trademarking the dictionary and every possible combination in it.

Re:Trademarking the dictionary

[mysidia]

Can I just apply for a trademark on every combination of every possible word and get it over with? It is rediculous people are allowed to do this.

It's in theory possible, but two things: for it to be effective, you must have exclusive use of the mark in commerce, and you must defend it. Also, there are filing fees, app fees, and ultimately trademark fees for each trademark you want, so filing for every combination could get quite expensive.

Next SEAL target: Bob Iger.

[Anonymous Coward]

Double Tap. Burial at Sea. Any questions?

business

[muckracer]

Of course there's (potentially very lucrative) porn! Why do you think, Disney bought the rights to "Seal Team 6"?

Quick! Someone trademark OBL!!!

[dutchwhizzman]

Before Disney does that as well....

government property can't be trademarked

[bkmoore]

I would have thought that military unit designations are basically government property and can be used by anyone under the first amendment. For example, anyone can make reproductions of the Statue of Liberty, the American Flag, etc. If Disney can trademark a unit designation, then why don't they just trademark the US Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force. It would piss a lot of unit coffee mess officers off when they have to buy their fund raising t-shirts from the Disney Corporation though. Maybe Disney should also trademark all of the national landmarks, national parks, the Liberty Bell, etc.

NOW you understand the true meaning of ...

[Jerry]

"you must compensate us for our intellectual property".

Not with MY action figures

[GovCheese]

When my trademark of "Taliban" and "Al Queda" is final, I think our action figures might have to see each other in court.

When I Think of SEAL Team 6

[LifesABeach]

I don't think of some mickey mouse group of people; just a thought.

How to contact disney

[Anonymous Coward]

To let Disney know if you agree or disagree with this action, here's the gentlemen who filed the trademark claim: charles.j.steinberg@disney.com

yeah, you really don't know how trademarks work...

[sribe]

Ok... what do you think will happen if you or I start using the name "Seal Team 6" in commerce today or on Monday; for a line of T-shirts, and maybe a 30 second Youtube video clip and 30-second for pay blurb, before Disney can?

If you do pull it off that fast, and Disney subsequently comes out with a line of T-shirts, then you will have a trademark infringement case against Disney.

Assuming Disney hasn't used it in commerce yet. Will they withdraw their application? Will the PTO refuse such a large corporation with such highly paid lobbiests, and probably no qualms against pushing a little money under the table? For some reason, I doubt that.

If you actually file a trademark application showing the mark as already used in commerce, then they will automatically not get that trademark--big corporation or not. Legally trademarks come into existence by their use--registration does not actually create a mark, it's just a system of convenience for corporations (large and small, and individuals) to notify each other about their uses of marks, and seniority of use absolutely has precedence. Now you can be sure that in that case Disney would first check to see if your claim of use in commerce was legitimate, and finding that it was they would try to nitpick any flaw in your application, but ultimately there really wouldn't be anything they could do.

A Singularity of Suck

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not quite sure how to interpret this, but I know it needs interpreting. The part of me that wants to be charitable doubts what this story implies - that Disney has bought the rights to the next FDNY hat in an effort to capitalize on and exploit suffering - as just too disgusting to possibly be real. Another part of me is too shocked to be disgusted. A third part of me sees this as affirming all the unsubstantiated horror stories I've heard about Disney from acquaintances who work in the film world. A fourth part of me sees the burden as falling on the American people for creating a system that tolerates and even encourages this kind of (entirely predictable and inevitable) corporate behavior in the first place. Finally, a last part of me perceives this as all of the major problems with modern America rolled into one event: a Singularity of Suck - an event that sucks so much that what kinds of things will suck in the future becomes qualitatively and fundamentally unpredictable.

Read more: http://www.theinductive.com/blog/disneys-rent-seeking-a-singularity-of-suck.html

Tell Disney how you feel

[Tise]

You can also leave a comment for Disney here - http://corporate.disney.go.com/citizenship/feedback.html

While a petition to cancel the trademarks could arguably be filed on the grounds that Disney is not able to *legitimately* exercise control over the use of the mark (see below) if they get enough nasty feedback and public commentary they will probably choose to withdraw or just abandon their application.

307 Time for Filing Petition to Cancel
15 U.S.C. 1064 [Section 14 of the Trademark Act] A petition to cancel a registration of a mark, stating the grounds relied upon, may, upon payment of the prescribed fee, be filed as follows by any person who believes that he is or will be damaged...
***
(5) At any time in the case of a certification mark on the ground that the registrant
(A) does not control, or is not able legitimately to exercise control over, the use of such mark,

Self-satirising

[dugeen]

There is simply no scope for satire in the idea of Disney planning to market lines of toys using the OBL assassination. All the points one could possibly make about US society are already there.

Re:Time for a new Movie!

[Anonymous Coward]

Starring Justin Bieber as Private Pyle

Given what happened to Private Pyle, I'd watch that.

wow....all in the name of the "Almighty Dollar"

[Anonymous Coward]

It discusses me.....what message are we sending to our children?....to our future voters....I always thought Disney=Fantasy..... NOT DISNEY to EQUAL CELEBRATION OF TRAGEDY, THE MURDER OF A HUMAN BEING AND MANY OTHERS......I am ashamed for our country......