Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Math The Courts Your Rights Online Thinks Depictions of Pi Are Protected Intellectual Property 264

Byteme writes: "A number of users have had their art and products removed from the site after a man named Paul Ingrisano was granted a trademark for 'Pi Productions' using a logo that consists of this freely available version of the pi symbol from the Wikimedia website combined with a period. He made infringement claims against several websites, and Zazzle took down many clothing products that featured designs using the pi symbol. When users called them on it, they locked a public forum thread and said they're evaluating Ingrisano's complaint."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted. Thinks Depictions of Pi Are Protected Intellectual Property

Comments Filter:
  • by Jason Levine ( 196982 ) on Friday May 30, 2014 @01:03PM (#47129813) Homepage

    Slashdot mucked up the formatting. (Of course, I should have seen this in the preview.)

    Just replace "I 3" with "I <3" above.

    Also, here's his new trademark: []

  • Re:Which trademark? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Jason Levine ( 196982 ) on Friday May 30, 2014 @01:16PM (#47129943) Homepage

    This is the trademark: []

    It's for the Pi symbol followed by a period. Literally. "The mark consists of the pi mathematical symbol followed by a period." So if I had a shirt that said "I like Pi." (using the symbol for Pi), my shirt would be in violation of his trademark. Furthermore, he might try claiming that just showing Pi by itself would be "confusingly similar." Not that he'd be successful, but he could threaten lawsuits which might make others back down due to an inability to fight a legal battle.

    He's also filed for the common Internet "I Love" shorthand: I <3 []

    As he doesn't currently seem to be USING these trademarks at all, he should automatically lose all rights to them.

  • by gstoddart ( 321705 ) on Friday May 30, 2014 @01:35PM (#47130115) Homepage long as the statists continue to defend ever increasing amounts of regulation with bullshit arguments like this, sure.

    Yawn ... do you know what you would have without a state? Nothing.

    You wouldn't have an education, running water, roads, a hospital to have been born in, or an internet to use to bitch about the state. You'd probably be someone's property.

    You know what they call people who want to overthrow the state? Terrorists.

    You might choose to call yourself a revolutionary. Go ahead. You'd be in good company with Chairman Mao, Pol Pot, and Joseph Stalin.

    And, you'll probably whine about how the state does everything with a gun pointed to your head. If it wasn't the state, it would be someone else.

    And what you're idealizing is pointing a gun to the head of everyone else and saying they must accept your wonderfully deluded reality. Again, just like Chairman Mao et al ... if we could only force the masses to see how divinely right we are, they would understand. But if they won't understand on their own, they must be made to understand.

    Bravo, sir.

  • by Frosty Piss ( 770223 ) * on Friday May 30, 2014 @01:57PM (#47130303)

    Paul Ingrisano
    1933 73rd street
    Brooklyn, NY 11204

    Apperently, he's an arteeest.

  • Re:damn (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 30, 2014 @04:47PM (#47131891)

    I'm sure you are joking there is one benefit of having the old monarchies remaining.
    While the kings in Europe seldom have a say in day to day politics there are occasionally leftover laws that transfer the command of the army to the king in the case of war. (The benefits of having a single strong leader in the event of crisis and so on.)
    This means that the government can't declare war on terrorists, drugs or videogames left and right.
    Or rather, they can, but declaring war gives power to someone else than the one declaring war. It becomes a lot less fun that way.

Science may someday discover what faith has always known.