zompist bboard

Debates over whether to write "should have", "should've" or "should of" have moved forward substantially today, at least in the UK, where it's been decided by the courts that "should've" belongs solely to the company 'SpecSavers', a seller of cheap spectacles.

It's been precedent for a few years now that even common words can belong to companies, though this is thought to be the first common verb to be acquired. Until now, the high water mark for control of the language was the drinks company Carlsberg, who partially own the word "probably". However, "probably" is only private property as a trademark when used specifically in the context of selling beer. Unusually, SpecSavers' rights to "should've" covers instead all "printed matter", regardless of what it is selling - it is apparently now illegal, for instance, to send someone a gift card with the verb on it. Likewise, it will no longer be permitted to, say, use "should've" in subtitles on a youtube video (and it's youtube's policy to take down potentially rights-violating videos at the complaint of the rights-holder, whether or not a court would agree).

It should be safe still to say "should've", and I suspect a certain amount of use of the proprietary verb for non-commercial purposes will be permitted in practice. But if you could be construed as urging or suggesting any exchange of goods and services, be aware, respect the law, and make sure not to contract the second word!

SpecSavers are true pioneers in 21st century progress, previously being reknowned and admired for their bold acquisition of the concept of the oval*.

Truly, the first step to an exciting, if lexically circumscribed, new linguistic future!



*I would demonstrate the meaning of the word with a diagram, but I'm afraid of attracting the attention of their lawyers...

I have five words in response to this: what a load of bollocks!

EDIT: Can we all agree now that unfettered capitalism is the devil's haemorrhoid and that if this carries on we won't be able to breathe without becoming a company stakeholder?

Kind of like that nonsense a few years ago when Candy Crush Saga sued The Banner Saga over use of the word "saga." I'm all for protecting intellectual property, but when corporations get their noses into it it starts to sound like self-parody. >_<

Can we all agree now that unfettered capitalism is the devil's haemorrhoid

If by "capitalism" you mean "corporate capitalism" or "crony capitalism" rather than "private capitalism," then yes.

Ooh, there was also Mojang's Scrolls, which was sued by Bethesda because apparently people might confuse a collectible card game with The Elder Scrolls series of open world RPGs. You know, because those two things are so similar.

alynnidalar wrote:Ooh, there was also Mojang's Scrolls, which was sued by Bethesda because apparently people might confuse a collectible card game with The Elder Scrolls series of open world RPGs. You know, because those two things are so similar.

I would have been going to get Scrolls, but then Mojang decided that they wouldn't keep developing it, which was a darn shame because it looked wonderful.

alynnidalar wrote:Ooh, there was also Mojang's Scrolls, which was sued by Bethesda because apparently people might confuse a collectible card game with The Elder Scrolls series of open world RPGs. You know, because those two things are so similar.

I think Bethesda also sued a company for using some term associated with Fallout, too; I understand Bethesda has been pretty litigation-happy in the past few years.

Wow, you were right. That's just sad.

THESE ARE COMMON ENGLISH WORDS, PEOPLE. (or reasonably common) YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ABLE TO COPYRIGHT THOSE.

alynnidalar wrote:Wow, you were right. That's just sad.

THESE ARE COMMON ENGLISH WORDS, PEOPLE. (or reasonably common) YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ABLE TO COPYRIGHT THOSE.

I started losing respect for Bethesda when Skyrim was such a shallow, lackluster game. Then they started suing everyone in sight over common English words. Then, without having even played it, Fallout 4 made no attempt to hide that it was a shallow FPS with RPG features and a complete rehash of FO3. Now they're milking the Skyrim cash-cow even further with a "remastered" edition and (rumor has it) new DLC, and resuming their litigation spree. Honestly, I have no respect for Bethesda anymore, despite Morrowind being my favorite game in existence.

alynnidalar wrote:Wow, you were right. That's just sad.

THESE ARE COMMON ENGLISH WORDS, PEOPLE. (or reasonably common) YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ABLE TO COPYRIGHT THOSE.

At least in the UK, you can't - but you can trademark them, which is only slightly less powerful.

Frislander wrote:EDIT: Can we all agree now that unfettered capitalism is the devil's haemorrhoid

Using the power of the government to restrict other's means to make profit (not just for-profit use in this case though) in a way that is not violence or thievery is the antithesis of capitalism, no?

Not if it makes you more money.

M Mira wrote:

Frislander wrote:EDIT: Can we all agree now that unfettered capitalism is the devil's haemorrhoid

Using the power of the government to restrict other's means to make profit (not just for-profit use in this case though) in a way that is not violence or thievery is the antithesis of capitalism, no?

Let's be honest, free trade is good for some things, but it's not as good as many people think with a lot of things (e.g. public transport), and it certainly shouldn't be allowed to govern everything. Holding up capitalism, and more to the point neoliberalism, as the highest goal for humanity is what got us into this mess in the first place!

Salmoneus wrote:'SpecSavers', a seller of cheap spectacles.

Yeah, £500 is cheap...