Public School Inc.

The expansion of trademarks, patents and copyrights over the past few decades has been both humorous and alarming in its absurdity. Can someone really own the right to common sayings like "silence is golden," "threepeat," or "let's get ready to rumble?" The answer, of course, is yes. David Hester from A&E's reality show Storage Wars (wow, that sounds exciting) patented "Yuuup!" and is now in a battle with rapper Trey Songz, who claims to have used it since 2009. Hmm, I think I used it in late 2008; maybe I should get involved. Then there's Jane's Addiction frontman Perry Farrell, who has a trademark on the word "lollapalooza" despite the fact that it had existed for about 100 years before his alternative rock festival of the same name started out in the '90s (and about 105 years before it stopped being relevant). Farrell, however, is cool with letting others use the word as long as they're not actually trying to rip him off, because it simply cost him too much money on lawyers to sue everyone who put "-palooza" at the end of every word. Funny how something that started as a somewhat radical event to push alt-bands became a $20 water and trademark extravaganza. And as for that football game you might have watched yesterday, yes, the NFL has trademarked "Super Bowl" and doesn't want anyone using it without their permission, or fair market value. One wonders how long it will be before writers have to pay for "the" and "and." I'm sure Disney can argue they coined them in the 20s.


Should Wal*Mart be able to trademark the smiley face, Snooki from Jersey Shore her name or the New England Patriots "19-0" (right before they lost the Superbowl that year)? Luckily in the latter cases the answer was no (Business Insider). But patents were issued for the thong diaper, pierced glasses (never lose them again), a kissing shield, nicotine-infused coffee and edible business cards (now that's eating up the competition!) On a more serious note, should corporations have the power, or right, to patent human genomes, diseases, genes and even the very blue prints of life itself? Whether we like it or not, they already are (The Corporation Clip).

The next battlefield, apparently, is our public schools: "A proposal by the Prince George’s County Board of Education to copyright work created by staff and students for school could mean that a picture drawn by a first-grader, a lesson plan developed by a teacher or an app created by a teen would belong to the school system, not the individual." (Washington Post). Of course, this makes perfect sense. The school system is doing a terrible job of educating our children and ensuring both the individual's and nation's economic prosperity for the future, but if they happen to do something profitable, should the school be able to cash in? The real reason for consideration of the plan is the lucrative side business of sellling lesson plans online. And we know that teachers are way overpaid for the meaningless work they do, right? Intellectual property agreements are now de rigeur on college campuses, where professors work and time is obviously subsidized by university pay, facilities and the general intellectual milieu. But can the same be said of our public schools? In fact, I think one could argue the opposite -- and many of our schools today are doing their best to quash innovation and creativity in the name of standardized tests and creating a future generation of robots. But I digress .... hmm, I wonder who owns that one.