Comments on: Shades of you-know-who

By: j.

j. — Thu, 17 May 2007 10:33:01 +0000

Because of an excess of spam, I've closed comments on this post. If you have a comment to leave please find another, more recent post in the stitch v bitch category and leave your comment there.

By: Denise

Denise — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 23:43:21 +0000

I’ve just heard about this debate, and had a quick look at the SFSE site – I’m bemused by their assertion that “No other usage of Stitch & Bitch ever occurred before the first Friday evening gatherings at Sew Fast Sew Easy in it’s first location 147 West 57th Street …”

A friend of mine is a long time SCA (Society for Creative Anachronisim) member – you know, chain mail, swords, ladies in long dresses. He was confused when I said I was going to a Stitch and Bitch group, because he thought I meant sewing medieval clothes, and didn’t know about the knitting use of the phrase… he said the SCA has been using the term ‘Stitch and Bitch’ for DECADES.

By: Johanna

Johanna — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 03:29:23 +0000

I think everyone is getting pissed over this SFSE thing for nothing. I have designed stuff and would definitely defend it if it was trademarked.

People are pissed because rumors are going around that SFSE is bullying them. On the contrary, I have only seen ridiculous and petty comments from the knitting community on this issue following rumor after rumor. As a knitter, I can honestly say that our team is being a little petty.

Being a NYer, I can honestly say business is business in the big apple.

By: kristi

kristi — Fri, 20 May 2005 17:26:43 +0000

Unfortunetly, online patents are not compleate, they are compleatly backlogged as they switch to an online archvie format. Someone put a patent out for the wheel to prove a point recently. What a mess. Response--the wheel patent has nothing to do with pre-1976 US patents not being text-searchable online. All US patents are available online in some manner or other; only, pre-76, they are searchable by class and patent number only, which makes searching for a single patent on a method of teaching sewing (if that's what it is) quite a pain, but still possible. However, those patents and patent applications that are published online are usually complete documents. Full file histories of patent applications are not usually available online, but have to be ordered from their respective patent offices. The wheel patent was an Australian patent lawyer's attempt to demonstrate the ridiculousness of the relatively new Australian "innovation patent" system (for a news blurb, read this). The innovation patent was intended as a way for claimants to inexpensively get a patent; however, inexpensive also means less review at the government level. Rest assured, though, that an Australian innovation patent has to undergo further scrutiny--examination and certification, like a "real" patent but not as stringent--before the patentee can actually sue on it: see this page for further information. This type of innovation patent system does not exist in the US, so there is little risk of anyone getting a US patent on a wheel with no new, innovative improvements; and if they did, I'd venture to say that the problem does not arise from public online searching difficulties, but on the quality of examination internally at the USPTO. By the way, an online search of Australia's innovation patent database shows that the "wheel" innovation patent was revoked.

By: jennifer

jennifer — Fri, 13 May 2005 01:26:04 +0000

Karen is outing herself as the least informed person about this situation and trademark law….SFSE has no legal standing (don’t own the mark, and are not most closely associated with it). Once they start consulting a lawyer, he’ll either explain that to them, or fleece them trying while they go out of business from bad publicity.

By: Karen

Karen — Thu, 12 May 2005 03:41:36 +0000

I also heard that Debbie Stoller and her team were watching this event very closely and are planning their own legal attaches.

By: Karen

Karen — Thu, 12 May 2005 03:40:25 +0000

…continued someone mentioned that they were not called this before. My grandmother verified this. This kind of talk was not even said in her day. Thank gosh we do not live in their day sometimes. I do not know what to think except it is between two people – but it makes interesting reading
Karen
- Wednesday, May 11, 2005 at 21:54:09 (EDT)
——————————————————————————–
I have been following this story very closely. ok. So I never read the snb book by debbie so I went to bnn to check it out. On page 9, she says that she created the first snb. I also checked with my grandmother who knits and she said they used to call it knit and perls. I would be curious to hear where debbie got this term from. I would also like to mention on metafilter
Karen
- Wednesday, May 11, 2005 at 21:52:26 (EDT)

By: Karen

Karen — Thu, 12 May 2005 01:52:14 +0000

Debbie Stoller claims invention to stitch and bitchs in her first book. I think SFSE could have a case because it is definitely on their website for a long time.

By: Kenna

Kenna — Thu, 12 May 2005 01:40:59 +0000

Ok, so going on the logic that a big company can attack a bunch of women who get together and knit, charge no dues, make no money or otherwise profit from having their own “stitch n bitch” does that mean if I trade mark sewing circles that I can go after all the grannies at the local churches who have sewing circles?? Hummmm think of the endless possiblities. No more quilting bee’s, no more sewing circles, no more stitch n bitches…..it’s all SO stupid!!

By: Becky

Becky — Wed, 11 May 2005 15:51:49 +0000

I did a little research of my own (and wrote in my blog further) into the words Big Mac. I stopped looking after I found eleven live registered trademarks to the words. Only five were owned by McDonalds. The others were owned by JC Penneys, a fishing lures company, so on. One was even (I think) a bean company that had trademarked “Big Mac” with quotation marks.