Slashdot Mirror


Chemists Make Olympic Rings On a Molecular Scale

ananyo writes "Chemists in the UK have made a five-ring polyaromatic hydrocarbon and dubbed it 'olympicene'. The molecule is just a couple of nanometers wide and can be regarded as a little fragment of graphene. Strictly speaking, of course, the molecule might constitute an 'unofficial use' of the motif and land the scientists in court for copyright infringement."

6 of 89 comments (clear)

  1. Hardcoded famous trademark by tepples · · Score: 4, Informative

    As I understand it, countries that have hosted the Olympic Games have to treat the rings and other IOC symbols as hardcoded famous trademarks, with sui generis restrictions that parallel the dilution restrictions on famous trademarks.

    1. Re:Hardcoded famous trademark by camperdave · · Score: 4, Informative

      The olympic rings were designed in 1912, not -775

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  2. Re:Trademark, not copyright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Don't worry. The IOC and their local corporations that sponsor the games and license the trademarks are nothing if not diligent in defending their trademarks. When the winter olympics were held here in Vancouver in 2010, much to my dismay, they scanned the city and sent out letters to any business that had any word like olympic in it that they were infringing on their trademarks and had to desist. Poor old Olympic Pizza. They'd been in business for over 30 years under that name but now THEY were infringing. The copyright laws even were amended so that sentences with the words or phrases with the following strings in close proximity were copyright protected to the VOC; 2010, olympic, winter, and a number of sports names.

    Dog and pony show where the venues are selected not by whether the community really wants/needs/can afford to host the games but by how much swag the selection committee can take away from that town. Our city and the local taxpayers are on the hook for almost $500 million for the real estate blunder that started as the place where the athletes were to be housed. And I don't want to know how much it cost to truck and helicopter in all the snow from the interior to blanket the mountains deep enough for the events to be held. What a waste. It sickens me every time I see a sign still up boasting about how Vancouver hosted the 2010 winter olympics. If it weren't for family concerns, I'd move to Owl's Anus, Alberta. Sorry, that turned into a rant but it felt very good to get it said. If anyone reading this ever gets a chance to speak out against or otherwise block their city from hosting an olympics, do it.

  3. close, except the olympic rings... by doug141 · · Score: 4, Informative

    interlock, instead of sharing edges.

  4. Re:Trademark, not copyright by Zorpheus · · Score: 4, Informative

    They actually did in 1995, but without success. Just found this as a reference on wikipedia: http://www.autoevolution.com/news/audi-reveals-updated-logo-10315.html

  5. Re:Trademark, not copyright by anyGould · · Score: 3, Informative

    I don't see how it's relevant, since the Olympic Committee isn't a profit making corporation, but is actually only a group who organise a non-profit event for the promotion of sports worldwide, right? What's a trademark if they're not actually trading in anything after all.

    The Olympics haven't been non-profit in many years. (I'm sure they're officially non-profit for tax purposes, but not in the "we don't make money at this" sense).

    For instance, between 2005-2008, the IOC (home of "Olympics, Inc.") generated nearly six billion dollars in revenue. And remember, the terms of hosting the Games is that you, not they, are responsible for any and all cost overruns.

    There's plenty of reading out there showing the real reasons why cities and countries bid for the Five Ring Circus. (Vancouver in particular is a nice case study.)