Insert witty subject line here.®
Aug. 2nd, 2008 11:46 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
elwenTrademarks are fun because they combine several types of nerdiness that I like to indulge in, like law, language, names, and acronyms. And trademarks are exactly why they've decided to rename the Stanford Linear Accelerator (SLAC).
Basically, the DOE wants to trademark the names of its labs, but Stanford doesn't want its own trademarked name in someone else's trademark. And so, somehow, the solution is to rename the lab without Stanford's name in it.
And I guess there's something about them wanting a new name to reflect their updated mission or something. But, um, proper noun plus "national laboratory" is farther from the mark than linear accelerator. At least with the latter you know what's there.
Not that I've thought a lot about these kinds of things, but if I were Stanford, it seems like I would want my name associated with the lab as much as possible -- maybe not to the extent of threatening what is probably a pretty valuable trademark, but it seems like they lose prestige by people not knowing about their involvement. Kind of like how it's not apparent on its face that Caltech runs JPL.
I hope they find a way to keep the acronym intact, though I don't see how. Can't they just pretend that "Stanford" refers to the untrademarkable city and not the institution? MPLAC just doesn't have the same ring.
Oh, and maybe I'm just not physics-nerdy enough, but what part of Linac Coherent Light Source "captures the excitement of new research"? I think it captures a sentiment of "wtf is that?" or maybe "are they referring to a light bulb?"
Basically, the DOE wants to trademark the names of its labs, but Stanford doesn't want its own trademarked name in someone else's trademark. And so, somehow, the solution is to rename the lab without Stanford's name in it.
And I guess there's something about them wanting a new name to reflect their updated mission or something. But, um, proper noun plus "national laboratory" is farther from the mark than linear accelerator. At least with the latter you know what's there.
Not that I've thought a lot about these kinds of things, but if I were Stanford, it seems like I would want my name associated with the lab as much as possible -- maybe not to the extent of threatening what is probably a pretty valuable trademark, but it seems like they lose prestige by people not knowing about their involvement. Kind of like how it's not apparent on its face that Caltech runs JPL.
I hope they find a way to keep the acronym intact, though I don't see how. Can't they just pretend that "Stanford" refers to the untrademarkable city and not the institution? MPLAC just doesn't have the same ring.
Oh, and maybe I'm just not physics-nerdy enough, but what part of Linac Coherent Light Source "captures the excitement of new research"? I think it captures a sentiment of "wtf is that?" or maybe "are they referring to a light bulb?"
no subject
Date: 2008-08-03 07:19 am (UTC)-JD
no subject
Date: 2008-08-03 10:01 am (UTC)Why on earth does DOE have to trademark the labs' names in the first place? Is there a thriving market of rival national labs that might claim them first, or are they worried about believable impostors? >.<
And "national lab" doesn't sound quite right for what SLAC does either; it's not like they're a broad-area research facility that does all sorts of stuff like Sandia or Los Alamos.
I'm all for just calling it SLAC, man. Let the naming/trademark business be over with sooner so they can go do their main job of research. DOE, just cut them some SLAC.