[Robert_Paulson2]

didn't somebody sell "sore loserman"posters modeled on the dumbocrat's art and graphics the last election?

not much difference.

[Michael121]

SORE/LOSERMAN t-shirts, bumper stickers et al. were made by a company here in Ohio. They are not an example of Corporate logo stealing. They are the perfect example of Protected political speech. The Democrat slogan is politcal advertisment and free speech is all about that. They did not use the DNC or alter that.

And that is the difference, alter a Logo of a private company and it is stealing. Parody a politician and it is protected. Both are different. I can call a senator, congressman etc.. a theif and a liar and not much can be done to me. Do that to a CEO and it can be libel or slander. Free speech is all about not being prosecuted for anti political speech. It is not freedom to print whatever you want about anybody. I cannot stand on company property and protest, but I can on public property, they are also seperate. I can get a speeding ticket on public roads not in a private parking lot. There is a distinction between what is protected.

[autoresponder]

That applied to eBay's civil lawsuit against other new tiny internet "seller's auction" for stealing the internet "look and feel" much as Microsoft, Netscape, Apple, and AOL have sued for "look and feel" outright copying; this is basically unique to the internet and to print media such as magazines and newspapers.

"Look and feel" will apply to the O'Reilly and FNC civil lawsuits, but the "Sore/Loserman 2000" bumper stickers and posters are 1st Ammendment political election campaign free speech.

It is not primarily designed or conceived to be a profit making private enterprise.

There is no unlawful intent to willfully, knowingly, and maliously defraud or libel for profit making purposes.

All the trial attorneys please line up here to dispute my logic:

[Dont Mention the War]

didn't somebody sell "sore loserman"posters modeled on the dumbocrat's art and graphics the last election? not much difference.

Regardless of the legalities of the situation (and it's generally accepted that the original Sore Loserman parody was created by FR's own Registered, for free, as a joke), it would not have been in the Gore campaign's best interest to go after anyone selling Sore Loserman merchandise because: 1) The campaign was practically over. They didn't need to protect the logo. 2) They would have looked like even bigger jerks than they already did, had they tried. 3) Suing costs money. And they needed every penny they had to spend on lawyers trying to manipulate vote counts, not go after t-shirt and button peddlers.