Unused and Probably Unusable

Spotted from a link on fark...

According to an AP article by William McCall, lawyers who will be taking an archbishop's deposition want assurances that he will not be lying under oath. The (religious?) doctrine of "mental reservation" apparently lets you get away with that kind of thing.

Which explains the wording adverted to here, in the oath in which a (for example, attorney) swears that "without mental reservation or purpose of evasion" they'll uphold the Constitution.

And here I figured it was just a nifty phrase. Turns out, it's a term of art. I'm not totally clear as to how asking someone to swear that they're swearing without lying (or holding back the truth in order to serve a higher good, or pick your euphemism) is more effective, but it certainly has a rolling majesty to it.

One could file this story under "different standards of compliance with law for the religious?" - or just cross-reference it with "Archdiocese" and "bankruptcy."

The oddly spelled skateboarding kick-move named "ollie," which according to my fave resource is an "aerial skateboard trick" that is the basis for most other tricks has, interestingly enough, generated some blawgish interest. Overlawyered puts it in a nutshell: Alan "Ollie" Gelfand invented the move (although OL's source says 1976; Wikipedia says 1978) and now is asserting rights.

It's in a dictionary,

but now Alan "Ollie" Gelfand, who invented the move as a teenager in 1976, and got around to registering a trademark in 2002, claims exclusive use of the term, and is suing Disney, Sega, and numerous other defendants $20 million for their use of the word. (Patrick Danner, "If you use the 'ollie,' pay Ollie", Miami Herald

In a law school class I remember distinctly the prawf asking us how and whether a proficient athelete might be able to garner protection for a move. A great football receiver might try to get protection for a move that allows him to score better. Impossible to protect? Physical moves are usually based on the laws of nature and the abilities and limitations of the human form itself, right?

What about copyright? Is there a creative arrangement that could be protectable? What about a figureskating choreographed dance?

Some sports-things are clearly within the sphere of accepted IP-covered inventions. High-tech weave fabric that passes perspiration but keeps the body warm and yet able to move; pads that work better at protecting the athelete.

This is, to me, a novel idea. Sport is ringed round with contracts; players contract with teams, endorsement seekers make side deals, there's value in the name recognition and in the ability to harness the boundless fan interest (and dollar). But can you prevent others from using the common name for a move?

Eponymous concepts raise interesting collisions between naming and individual rights, and the interest of the public in, well, being able to call things by their name. What do you do with "Three-peat"? No court's going to force skateboarders to describe an ollie in full; 'ollie' is the name of the move. The move itself is presumably unprotected, fundamental though it may be and groundbreaking as it might have been when it was new.

Cute, clever, descriptive, random or evocative names exist throughout sports and athletics. Somehow I don't think Mr. Gelfand is going to get everything he wants - although he's just raised his profile enough to be noticed by the blawgosphere. Probably not his intended goal, though.