Ashley+Hurt

In Denis Baron’s Facebook says, “All your faces are belong to us”, the main problem is that Facebook wants to trademark the word “face”, so that other sites have to drop the word from their name. Facebook has already shown it to be successful with “book” and shown that we all can live together as friends. Companies wanting patents on common words are not something new for the Patent office, Coca Cola has one for Cola and Xerox has one too; and it is only supposed to be used when you are making a cope on a Xerox machine, not any photocopy. The reasons trademarks are made are because corporations want their brand names all over the world and being said. Sometimes companies lose their trademark because the name becomes too common and they lose their legal rights. Ways to make already common words your own, are only putting a trademark on the word when used in context of your company. For example, Monopoly trademarked its name, but only when talking about banking and real estate, otherwise it is just another word. Those kinds of patents don’t happen much now because businesses want to be at the top of everything, so they want the whole meaning of the word to be theirs. Facebook cannot have “face” and “book” all to themselves because there are already famous books and phrases that have book or face in them that are patented. So in other words, Facebook can only force sited to take it out of their name. Facebook also wants to go after Apple’s FaceTime app because it has its new trademark in their name. Even though Facebook has common words trademarked, Apple wants to go after an even more common word, “I” since they couldn’t get ownership over “pod”. So compared to Apple, Facebook’s trademarks are nothing out of the ordinary. Even if Facebook has these trademarks on the words “face” and “book”, people will still think of them as face and book and not as a Facebook.  I feel the author uses logos in this article more than pathos and ethos because they tell you exactly what has happened in the past with trademarks and what other companies are trying to do. It is a very logical idea that he is explaining because he tells you that these common words can be trademarked, but they will still have the meaning that they did before. His logos is very persuasive because he gives detail on each point he makes, but not so much that one idea over powers another. He relies on logos the most, but uses pathos by using words that were trademarked in the past as humor, like heroin because no legal business wants their name behind that now and Xerox by saying people just use the word for any photocopy, but in the dictionary it is a copy by a xerographic machine. He doesn’t really show that he is a creditable source for this, but by using phrases and books that are very common, it shows that he knows what he is talking about and gives detail to the history of some trademarks. He also uses images that show the phrases like: Book ‘em Danno” are real and used to be funny. The audience of this article I feel would be users of Facebook because if you see an article with the name of something you use often, you will most likely be interested. Other people that might be reading this are English majors or people who like the English language because it is on a website about the English language. This site has many pictures of inventions that were made and different things that brought up the English language. This shows that they know a lot about the English language and the information is most likely true. Having this site be about the English language, the spelling and grammar in the posting will all be correct and they won’t be using slang words or abbreviations for things. All together the site seems very creditable and the atmosphere is very calm and just trying to get the information about the English language out for everyone to learn and know.
 * //You need to make sure you consistently use language that indicates the ideas in your summary are still Baron's and not yours: he says, Baron argues, He believes that...etc. //**
 * // Ashley - Nicely done. In the future, be sure to include some quotes to support your claims when you analyze. Overall, though, you did well for your first analysis. CHECK PLUS ~Prof. Wendt //**