Forty Year Decline or Stagnation of Objectivism (1967-2007)

[Greybird]

Strangely enough, I am not against The Estate of Ayn Rand filing for trademark protection of the name, "Ayn Rand." All this means is that the term cannot be used on the name of a legal entity or as part of a product without paying for the privilege. (I am not sure about nonprofit legal entities.) There is no problem with other uses, which are provided for under fair use.

Ah, no, there isn't such a provision, because "fair use" only applies to copyrighted material — in its being quoted or duplicated for review, commentary, educational, and other specific uses. Trademark rights aren't at all limited in this way.

Trademarks aren't all the same, either. They differ by whether a "drawing" or only words are registered, and they're registered for specific categories of use — though often broad ones.

Rand and Nathaniel Branden registered "The Objectivist" as a unique combination of words. (Its registration has been renewed, and Peikoff owns it now, as a TESS search at the Patent and Trademark Office reveals.)

When Rand published The Ayn Rand Letter, its logo used her distinctive signature for the middle words, and she had that signature registered as a trademark. This used the "drawing" of its unique appearance.

This last registration has since lapsed, but The Letter was used as the example of "first use in commerce" for the words "Ayn Rand," which was registered in 1998 by Peikoff.

You go on to suggest that, say, JARS might escape being "blocked" because it's devoted to studying Rand's work. Unfortunately, the law's weight is with Peikoff.

He has the exclusive legal right to use the words "Ayn Rand" in both of these categories (small "O" in original):

[...] printed matter, namely, brochures, newsletters, educational and instructional materials concerning the literature, teaching, philosophy and study of objectivism.

[...] educational services, namely, lectures, instructional workshops and seminars concerning the literature, teaching, philosophy and study of objectivism.

If Peikoff wanted to proceed against Chris Sciabarra and JARS, he might have a very strong case. He's registered the trademark for such "printed matter." He's probably only inhibited by the P.R. nightmare that would ensue and the unlikelihood of wringing damages out of the magazine.

It doesn't at all matter, as you say, that JARS "was probably founded before the trademark application was filed or approved." That's akin to the "prior art" issue for patents. What matters, for trademarks, is "first use in commerce."

By the way, "Institute for Objectivist Studies," "The Objectivist Center," and "The Atlas Society" were all once applied for as registered trademarks, but have been abandoned. What the Patent and Trademark Office search service does not show is why this has happened. (They may have chosen to avoid litigation, or they may have not thought it was worth their trademark attorney's fees.)

As to the propriety of registering her name, more generally:

If Peikoff weren't at least making a stab at restricting debate, he wouldn't have taken pains to get such a broad scope of a registration for the name "Ayn Rand." Such names are routinely registered, if at all, in far narrower categories.

For example, Marilyn Monroe's signature is registered, as an image, not the words "Marilyn Monroe" as such — except for specific types of clothing items. (Including, logically, brassieres {g})

If Sciabarra, et al., counterattacked in a lawsuit, challenging Peikoff's right to do so, they might prevail, and invalidate the trademark as such — not just the registration.

Yet until then, Peikoff has the blackjack of potential legal costs to hold over others' heads. As he did when he threatened Barbara Branden and Robert Hessen over their manuscript auction, and exacted a settlement. I wonder if that "power" gives him some strange thrill.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ah, no, there isn't such a provision, because "fair use" only applies to copyrighted material — in its being quoted or duplicated for review, commentary, educational, and other specific uses. Trademark rights aren't at all limited in this way.

Steve,

I am out of time to provide law and examples, but Google the words "trademark" and "fair use" to see a number of considerations.

Michael

[Greybird]

You're still incorrect, and "fair use," as a matter of law (not inexact custom), is solely a copyright concept. Trademarks are exclusive rights in the realm of commerce.

Edited June 16, 2007 by Greybird

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

OK Steve,

The Goggle hits don't exist.

Michael

[Greybird]

I had been aware of "nominative use" in the realm of referring to trademarks. Apparently, checking my own resources, since the Lanham Act, this has edged into more inexactly being called "fair use."

It is not the same, however, as "fair use" in the copyright statutes, and that confusion should be avoided. This sense of it does not apply, again, to a mark being used in commerce. It involves referring to a trademark in other contexts. The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies is undeniably a product being offered for sale, and is at risk.

I don't appreciate your condescension and your barbs, Michael. They're not helpful.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Steve,

Instead of discussing by proclamation, repetition and thin skin, I suggest citing sources. That avoids a lot of disagreements. If you can't take disagreement, you shouldn't expose yourself to people who think for themselves. Rational people usually are reasonable with sources (unless there are conflicting sources).

Michael

[Daniel Barnes]

Mike:

>Where did I do that?

Well, there I was, popping Wolf's solipsistic bubble with a little reality, and you started bringing in firing squads and dictators for some reason. Talk about over-egging it.

Certainly there is much to be said for standing up for what you believe in, but this virtue is severely compromised when what you believe in is nonsense.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Daniel,

Read some of Wolf's works. You don't have to agree with it all. He's an amazing dude—much more than an Internet poster or an argument.

Michael

[Daniel Barnes]

Mke:

>Read some of Wolf's works. You don't have to agree with it all. He's an amazing dude—much more than an Internet poster or an argument.

Yes, I already did.

[James Heaps-Nelson]

If you believe that analysis, and you also believe the Objectivist analysis of our current and past cultural decline, then I do not see how the need for spreading our philosophy can be ignored.

Jerry,

I think that when Rand wrote the US was a good proxy for the free world. I think people trying to spread Objectivism should look to India, the Baltic States, Ireland and other fertile places around the world. The US has been exposed to Atlas Shrugged for 50 years, any growth we get here will be incremental. We should look to new frontiers and find ground where people are eager and not poisoned by factional rivalry in Objectivism.

Jim

[Brant Gaede]

I think that when Rand wrote the US was a good proxy for the free world. I think people trying to spread Objectivism should look to India, the Baltic States, Ireland and other fertile places around the world. The US has been exposed to Atlas Shrugged for 50 years, any growth we get here will be incremental. We should look to new frontiers and find ground where people are eager and not poisoned by factional rivalry in Objectivism.

Jim

This won't work. Objectivism is so far from exportable you might as well be talking about converting Marshans, if there were any. The question to ask is why Objectivism is (domestically) here instead of there. (Not India.)

--Brant

Edited June 16, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[BaalChatzaf]

This won't work. Objectivism is so far from exportable you might as well be talking about converting Marshans, if there were any. The question to ask is why Objectivism is (domestically) here instead of there. (Not India.)

--Brant

Do the Marshans come from the planet Marsha?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Brant,

People are people wherever they are. There will always be a few that choose a different path. I suppose some of my background predisposed me to like Objectivism. I had a staunchly anticommunist social studies teacher in 6th grade who simulated a communist classroom for 2 weeks to demonstrate how horrible it was. We had to carry around these little communist ID cards all day and other things. I also read about half of Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago before reading Rand. I had a 9th grade history teacher who was a Nazi concentration camp survivor and who showed a bunch of Holocaust films.

Sure the United States has a pro-enlightenment heritage, but I see fewer people wanting to carry that forward...

Jim

[Rodney]

Do the Marshans come from the planet Marsha?

No, the planet Marsh.

There's water there.

[Wolf DeVoon]

I think globally. Part of that is based on experience. I met Objectivists from China, Russia, Poland, Italy, Japan. My piece on liberal democracy was quoted by a legal scholar in Nepal. A lot of money is gravitating to places like Dubai and Shanghai.

We should view Objectivism as descriptive of man at his best, not as a prescriptive standard that few will attain. Roughly two percent of humans are challenged on par with Dagny and Hank, Dominique and Howard. But over half of all mankind past and present were and are implicitly acting like Objectivists devoted to reason, purpose and self-esteem. Were this not the case, man as a species would have ceased to exist. A majority must be rational or we all perish. It's called general consent.

The select Two Percent swing a lot of weight in the world, and naturally I am chiefly concerned with their spiritual condition, rather than attempting to lead en masse the Six Billion, most of whom are disinclined to be led any more than currently, thanks to institutional inertia of religion and government. There are numerable worthy efforts to reform those institutions, some of which offer genuine step-wise improvements, like abolition of slavery and greater diffusion of private property.

But government and revealed religion are almost universally evaded and resented, except by those employed thereby. We live in a 50/50 society because roughly half of us are private citizens and half are government/church employees, contractors, or beneficiaries.

The Two Percent are individualists who feel nothing but contempt and boredom for church and state (2% of 6 billion = 120 million). If you speak of reason, purpose or self-esteem with any of these folks, they will reply in various idioms and languages: Damn straight!

The Two Percent keep the lights on, explore for and produce oil, operate grocery stores and airlines, etc. Reality is real to them, like it is for anyone attempting to wrest from nature the physical power to sustain human life. They live on all six continents. Most of them are young enough to listen. The great problem is marketing media. Web marketing seems most likely to succeed.

I'm not insensitive to the hope of scientists and math theorists that they, too, deserve to be recruited to the Gulch. What I doubt is whether they'll be any good at building trades, cable splicing, farm work, etc.

I refer to the Gulch because it exists and it always has. Rand merely dramatized the mind on strike in a make-believe realm that never actually existed. But I think it's evident that first-class leaders dropped out in the 80's and 90's. Lee Hamilton's retirement was particularly bad news. The nation and the world lost an excellent U.S. president and got Deputy Dubya instead, dramatic proof of the mind on strike.

W.

P.S. - thanks, Mike. Quit defending me please.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

P.S. - thanks, Mike. Quit defending me please.

Wolf,

Now why would I do a fool thing like that?

One defends one's values.

(I'll go easy if it makes you uncomfortable, though.)

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Martians?

--Brant

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Martians?

--Brant

Yes, they're very adept at serving Martinis .

Jim

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Marshan?

I was wondering. I thought it might have been something like the following:

Rock Group from Scotland: Songs from Southern and Baseline by Marshan (mp3 samples)

Township in Dakota County, Minnesota: Marshan (Analysis of soil sediments: Marshan Series)

Young female from Tampa, FL: Marshan

Business administrators in LA: Marshan Group

Get-rich-quick Internet commerce: Marshan International

Speed boat: Marshan 21

Software development company in South Africa: Marshan Technologies

Dayaamm! Now I see it's Martian!

Michael

[Philip Coates]

Lots of really great posts on this thread! Too many interesting points to respond to, in fact...For once I didn't start a thread on OL which instantly died :-)

I want to offer some thoughts on one of Jerry Biggers' very good questions (and points) he posted on June 13:

"And if [TAS/TOC] is shrinking, why do you think that is? What do you think needs to be changed in order to reverse this alleged attrition?"

(I don't know that they are still shrinking, but they are smaller than before...and a long way from regaining previous size.)

One big factor is being somewhat too "egghead-heavy":

(1) The institution has been started and run by a brilliant man for almost its entire life whose bent is highly abstract, theoretical, epistemological, cerebral, and retiring. His preference and training is to write and theorize on advanced topics, on the epistemology of sense perception, to write logic textbooks, to analyze the logical structure, to dot the i's and cross the t's, to debate forever the more technical disputes. Flourishing or surviving? Surviving or flourishing? HMMMM? (To be fair David Kelley writes and speaks on other topics, but this seems to be his deepest inclination and 'bent'.)

I don't wish to disrespect or belittle these issues. (I would also be interested in many of them.) These are things which are actually vital over time to the enlargement, extension, application of Objectivism. But there are two problems: First, the market for them is small. Second, someone who has invested so much of his focus on them is likely to be less developed in more practical areas such as leadership, running a business or a non-profit, management, delegation as opposed to micro-managing, figuring out how to mentor or develop or recruit people. And so on. It's possible for an academic to make a good businessman or leader, but it seldom happens and not without a lot of trial and error...and a healthy respect for the more 'practical', more nuts and bolts, more nitty-gritty of the two fields.

(2) ARI had initial struggles while IOS had some success and accumulated goodwill (at least after the initial start up pains) -- as people alienated from the former trickled over to the latter from 1989 thru 1999 (approximately). This tends to give an organization the sense that whatever it is doing must be right. Don't rock the boat and change whatever you started out doing. So, sort of like the trust-fund baby, it seems to have grown slowly with its summer conferences expanding each year, naturally without much pump-priming, with the luxury of a certain complacency and in allowing itself to become sort of flabby and slow-moving and ivory tower as an institution. Make decisions in house and then spring them on your members. Don't send out how are we doing questionnaires to everyone. And it got a bit grandiose and rash with the idea of the Atlas Society (first incarnation in the late nineties) to reach out to novel lovers as opposed to those who had taken the Peikoff courses or read all the nonfiction, glossy publications and monographs before they were really ready and before the market really existed, etc.

(3) Their mistakes or giving of too little attention to nuts and bolts and practicality (the most glaring of which is the mistakes I've posted on elsewhere in how they run summer conferences...at which attendance should be -rising- from year to year but have been dropping -and- the loss of practical administrative people like a Don Heath who kept the wheels from falling off). Another example is a simple lack of organization and follow-through: spelling and website errors, not answering emails or sending materials, not having all the recording equipment plugged in for speakers at summer conferences. David Kelley's view that those who need Air-Conditioning during ten hours of lectures and one hundred degree summer temperatures are simply wimps...or not physically fit people who need to be put out of their misery... Okay, I exaggerated that one a bit :-) But, the sense one gets is that this nitty-gritty stuff seems to be of less importance than writing essays and thinking deep philosophical thoughts.

But it isn't. It's vital and a prerequisite.

You can't hold people or get contributors to increase their contributions if you seem disorganized on the simpler, more mundane things. They will worry if attending an event will be a fiasco (or they will attend once and not come back - high turnover). Or they won't send money to a place that seems likely to waste it or not achieve results.

You only get paid to think the deep thoughts if you have the small matters under control. (You can hire people who do this for you. But only to some extent. It has to be a part of the DNA of the leaders.)

(4) Once institutions get set in their ways, once the above sort of ivory-tower focus has set in over the first ten years, the latter addition of less academic people such as Robert B and Ed H doesn't immediately change the institutional DNA. You do need the academic-minded, like David and Will Thomas, who are less able to reach out to non-Objectivists..But they shouldn't be in charge or set the tenor of the organization. As the Chairman of the Board, David is still in charge. At a later stage, a more specialized, more theoretical, more academic organization will be needed. But that is after a solid base has been built, a growing movement which can support the theoreticians and the rambling, inconcluisive 'advanced seminars'. Or ten hours of lectures in a day.

(5) There is recognition of the 'out of touch', not inspiring or being appealing issue now at TOC. The problem is dragging up the anchor and knowing how to make a course correction. There are four possible audiences for those schooled in Objectivism who want to spread their ideas (in outwardly expanding concentric circles): i) knowledgeable or budding Objectivists, ii) fans of the novels with no knowledge of the philosophy, iii) the right wing ghetto (agree with many of the cultural-political-economic ideas, iv) general public.

The Objectivist movement has primarily surrounded itself with, gotten skilled at speaking to i). David attempted a course for ii) but it didn't work. ARI has tried to develop ii) and convert some into i). But both organizations lose *almost all of them* along the way.

The only people and venues who successfully converted novel readers to budding students of Objectivism in huge numbers are ___, ___, and ___??? (see my post originating this thread for the answer...)

I can say, as someone who lectures frequently to those who are neither i), nor ii) but iii) or iv), that your knowledge base, your examples, your speaking and writing style have to be almost ENTIRELY different for these groups. I thin Bidinotto and Hudgins get this, but they are starting late after a downhill momentum and loss of institutional trust to figure out how to make this work. And the idea of doing it thru a magazine is about the hardest possible thing you could undertake...even though The New Individualist keeps getting better and has many superb articles. [That would be another whole post].

The second part of Jerry's question is what needs to be changed...but answering the first part has taken too many words (and is not even complete as it is).

.....

One hint: Study what works. Figure out why and copy it (semi)-slavishly. I've been to conferences for the super-successful Federalist Society and (yesterday) the super-successful Intercollegiate Studies Institute. ... Very, very impressive. Lots of lessons for BOTH TOC AND ARI. Lots of things neither is doing very well but could...Long story.

[Philip Coates]

I'd add a couple more ways in which TOC has been too "egghead-heavy" across fifteen years:

(6) Essentialize, essentialize: In writing (and sometimes) speaking style, too many of TOC's leading thinkers and writers can be in need of a good editor - rambling, long-winded, overly abstract without punchy examples, cerebral and non-emotional. He overcomplicates or over-nuances or over-"texturizes". This is a classic mark of the egghead. The professorial type. He so loves his words that he just goes on and on and on, or perhaps overexplains. Or tries to cover too many sub-themes in one piece. [The New Individualist under Bidinotto is not so self-indulgent as Navigator was under Roger Donway.]

This is by contrast to many ARI writers who can be -too- terse and condensed, over-essentialized, leaving out rich examples or full explanation, etc. ARI writers tend to make the opposite mistake. A great and powerful and dramatic writer (and thinker) would be in better balance.

(7) Executive clarity and decisiveness*: IOS became TOC which became TAS and the focus of what projects to pursue has kept shifting along with the name. Make a good, realistic choice based on sound business and management and marketing considerations. Even though it may be slow and difficult to make a breakthrough. Pour every effort into that to actually *make it work*. And stay with it for more than a few years until it pays off. (The original Atlas Society bailed out of its well-publicized plan to build communities and have events for Rand fans all across the country *without even having attempted to hold ONE event*. And without explanation to contributors and supporters. I asked directly and only got a non-explanation explanation along the lines of 'we decided to go in a different direction'. That certainly cleared that up.)

*this is actually related to the essentialize point

...

Does anyone have a better phrase than "egghead-heavy"? It's not quite exact to capture the things I'm complaining about.

[Brant Gaede]

Phil, didn't someone already do what you are trying to do? He wrote "The Prince." Someone else wrote, "On War." The problem is you aren't the prince. Another problem is none of the Objectivist organizations you are complaining about make any money, as far as I can tell. If they were profit oriented they might find your advice valuable if it demonstrably flowed to their bottom lines.

There are a variety of power centers in this world, public and private. The essence of private power centers generally is in profit making businesses. If you want to educate then you have to sell your educational product in the free market--or go into public education.

Now a capitalist can accumulate power (money) and use it by giving it away, but that's the envy-appeasement downside of virtue.

Maybe people don't make money with Objectivism because it's not good enough to sell. Could be it's just packaged wrong, as you so claim, but maybe in it's present state it's not merely a matter of packaging.

I really don't think one should be on the inside of Objectivism looking out, but on the outside looking in. Then one wouldn't be trapped in conundrums or, as I like to say, reality frictions.

--Brant

[Robert Campbell]

Steve,

Thanks for the information on the trademark status of "The Objectivist" and "Ayn Rand."

I think the notion of "nominative" use would make lawsuits to protect the "Ayn Rand" trademark into a major crapshoot for The Estate of Ayn Rand.

Here is an attempt to summarize what "nominative use" is about:

An author's use of a trademark for the above-referenced situations should be considered a non-confusing "nominative use" when it meets the following requirements: (1) the trademark owner's product or service must be one that is not readily identifiable without the use of the trademark; (2) the author only uses as much of the trademark as is reasonably necessary to identify the trademark owner's products or services; and (3) the author does nothing that would, in conjunction with the trademark, suggest to the reader sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark owner.

It comes from Lloyd L. Rich's piece at http://www.publaw.com/fairusetrade.html

I found this question in Rich's article rather amusing:

Does your use turn the trademark into a noun or verb or does it turn the mark into the plural form? The improper use of a trademark could weaken the protection of a mark. Trademarks are adjectives; they should not be used as nouns or verbs. If a trademark is in its singular form an author should not use it in its plural form. Therefore, if an author decides to use a trademark in his/her work he/she should ensure that it is used properly. For example, an author should follow each use of the trademark with the generic noun, such as using the word "tissues" after the trademark "Kleenex".

"Ayn Rand" is a noun, after all.

Even though the Estate of Ayn Rand is a completely different entity from the Ayn Rand Institute, and the Estate's revenues do not fund ARI, the two are entangled in a manner highly advantageous to Leonard Peikoff. If the principals of ARI displease Peikoff, he can bar all of their scholars from access to the Ayn Rand Archives. He can call a halt to putting their cards in future printings of Rand's books. I suppose he could also forbid them to use the "Ayn Rand" trademark in the future.

No wonder the latest Ayn Rand Bookstore catalogue puts the special section for Dr. Peikoff's books and lecture materials at the very beginning, ahead of the special section for Ayn Rand's own works. (Harry Binswanger's much skimpier special section follows Rand's.) And only Leonard Peikoff gets to proclaim that the presence of his works in the catalogue does not necessarily constitute an endorsement of anything else offered there.

Leonard Peikoff need not hold any office in ARI to stay in control of the organization.

It will be interesting to see how Dr. Peikoff's heirs and assigns at the Estate decide to conduct themselves. Until the copyrights on Rand's books expire (in 2057, right?), they will be assured of steady revenues. And neither their control of the Ayn Rand Archives nor of the "Ayn Rand" trademark has an expiration date.

Robert Campbell

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Phil, didn't someone already do what you are trying to do? He wrote "The Prince." Someone else wrote, "On War." The problem is you aren't the prince. Another problem is none of the Objectivist organizations you are complaining about make any money, as far as I can tell. If they were profit oriented they might find your advice valuable if it demonstrably flowed to their bottom lines.

There are a variety of power centers in this world, public and private. The essence of private power centers generally is in profit making businesses. If you want to educate then you have to sell your educational product in the free market--or go into public education.

Now a capitalist can accumulate power (money) and use it by giving it away, but that's the envy-appeasement downside of virtue.

Maybe people don't make money with Objectivism because it's not good enough to sell. Could be it's just packaged wrong, as you so claim, but maybe in it's present state it's not merely a matter of packaging.

I really don't think one should be on the inside of Objectivism looking out, but on the outside looking in. Then one wouldn't be trapped in conundrums or, as I like to say, reality frictions.

--Brant

Brant,

I agree with you. We've got to stop counting on any one organization or even the Objectivist movement as a whole as the solution to human problems or even ideological problems. We have to be receptive to the most seminal work in various fields wherever we can find it. Obviously Objectivism will be very important to evaluating the new ideas, but Objectivism still hasn't boxed the compass on creativity and innovation and it's increasingly unlikely that it will.

Jim

[Wolf DeVoon]

I really don't think one should be on the inside of Objectivism looking out, but on the outside looking in.

I agree with Brant. The view from inside is that of a Product Manager or Marketing Manager. Their job is to recruit and fund outside contractors for PR and marketing communications (like advertising and promotion). Direct sales is a profession unto itself. I would drop the scholarship segment and focus all resources on target marketing to the aforementioned 2% worldwide (in English, French, Chinese, etc).

W.