Does BSA have a monopoly?

[jmenand]

I would like to clarify and rephrase what I am trying to say. I do not deny that the BSA has done a lot of the 'heavy lifting.' No doubt, some people want to make alternative youth organizations and call them scouting just to emulate and "steal" some of that success. However, I feel that my comparison to religions is at least appropriate when talking about the legal classifications of different organizations as being companies for business, non-profit organizations, or religions (or anything else).

 

Why is it that religions can take a fundamental element of another religion, and build a slightly different religion around that core principal? To take my previously used example, the LDS church is an example of a religion that has many similarities to other christian organizations, with a number of fundamental differences. They are arguably very successful and operate in many ways very efficiently and business-like.

 

So can anyone explain in plain language what the difference is between an organization like the BSA and an organization like the LDS church?

 

We keep coming back to the word "scouting" as the definitive aspect that is under contention, but it is really the entire history, connection to Baden-Powell and the Scout Law, etc. that is being held by the BSA. If I make a scouting organization called the Monkey Treemen that talks about the history of Baden Powell and his vision for a worldwide scout movement and all that, will the BSA leave me alone just because I don't have the word "scout" in the name of the organization?

 

Why can christian churches start their own non-profit religious organizations with nearly identical beliefs and histories, while alternative scouting organizations cannot?

 

It just doesn't make sense to me, and for that I apologise for my ignorance. If someone knows the answer, please tell me/us!

[scoutldr]

I'm not a lawyer, but I think you're making this more difficult than it is. Anyone can form a youth group and have activities, uniforms, etc. You just can't infringe on the BSA corporate trademarks,patents and copyrights. And even at that, I think that after a certain number of years, copyrighted materials become public domain. That might explain why BSA pubs are constantly being revised and reprinted.

[DanKroh]

ManassasEagle,

 

"DanKroh- oops, I forgot the smiley."

Well, I've never been of the mentality that as long as you add a smiley, name calling is ok.

 

"All I was trying to do was to point out the irony of the fact that the article (from the side that you apparently agree with) calls the BSA "weasel-like" and "cagy" for stating "we won't illegally discriminate" by comparing it to your statement that the BSA will sue you if you start your own group. Sticking the word "illegally" in there is "weaseling" on the part of the BSA similar to your not mentioning that you'll only get sued if you try to call your group "something scouts something"."

 

I do understand irony, really I do. And while I agree with some of the points of the article (such as the fact that the council backpedaled from it's non-discrimination policy in 2003 due to pressure from national), I did say right up front that I didn't agree with the level of sarcasm and harshness of the author. However, it was a current article that mentioned the 2003 incident that I had been trying to remember for a couple of days.

 

Also, although you seem to think that the BSA was suing based on the use of the name "scouting", I'm not sure that is the case. Since I can't find the Lifescouts site anymore, where they had posted a pdf of the legal documents submitted by the BSA, I can't reference it to refresh my memory. However, I believe that the BSA had issue with the organization as a whole, not just the name they chose. But like I said, since the site has since disappeared, I can't verify that anymore.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

There's a current trademark battle between the BSA and YouthScouts:

http://youthscouts.org/news.html

 

Here's the US Patent and Trademark office page on it:

http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?qt=adv&pno=91157313&qs=&propno=&propnameop=&propname=&pop=&pn=&pop2=&pn2=&cop=&cn=

 

or

 

http://tinyurl.com/espxq

[packsaddle]

First, BSA is selling something.

Part of the reason we pay low registration fees is that much of the 'heavy lifting' is done by unpaid volunteers and some by the boys themselves. This is a huge subsidy that helps keep the program VERY competitive with any organization that doesn't have a similar business plan.

Furthermore, while BSA seems to 'sell' the program to families and boys, in fact BSA is 'selling' enrollment figures to funding agencies whose funding is dependent on those enrollment figures. This is one of the reasons that, like it or not, the issues raised by Jkhny are important issues. BSA is quite aware of this and the fallout from their win at the Supreme Court, in essence, affects the revenue flow when funding agencies (the customers) turn away.

 

In one view, BSA stood on principle. In another view, they may have failed the stockholders (the boys) in a fundamental way if they don't replace that lost revenue with another source. If Jkhny is correct and council books are being widely 'cooked' to milk funding from the remaining agencies willing to 'buy', then BSA is in the 'Arthur Anderson' mode of business and deserves to suffer the fate of any entity that can't compete effectively. The unseen hand will remove it.

Perhaps fees should increase and the program should become a user-fee-based program. After all, most private clubs expect members to pay their way.

 

What organization does most of the same things without the discriminatory baggage? I suggest that 4-H does. It could be a very effective competitor. They have a great program. They have the camps. They have a great history. I'm trying to think of something bad about them. Thinking...

[Beavah]

I'm with jmenand here, eh?

 

Baden Powell, not the BSA, did the heavy lifting. Indeed, the BSA benefitted substantially from gents like Hillcourt who were trained in Scouting (the movement) outside of the U.S., and who brought that "intellectual property" to America. If modern "IP" law applied back then, the entire BSA program would be paying licensing fees to the scout associations in Denmark and Britain.

 

I like da BSA, eh? I'd stick with 'em as a provider of scouting materials and program.

 

But the BSA's claim to scouting terms and the basic scouting program is dishonest and dishonorable.

 

 

 

 

 

[SR540Beaver]

"But the BSA's claim to scouting terms and the basic scouting program is dishonest and dishonorable."

 

No, no it isn't. What if every car company wanted to include the word Chevrolet in their name? Or if every shoe company wanted to call their shoes Nikes or every fast food place wanted to be called McDonalds? All of those names are brands just like Scouts is to the BSA.

 

What happens if the Ford "Chevrolet" has a problem that causes the vehicle to blow up. Who knows if it was the real Chevrolet that has the problem or the Ford Chevrolet? If you have the Kid Scouts of America with Troops and Patrols and they have no youth protection guidleines in place and allow kids to sleep in tents with adults, guess who gets painted with the same brush of criticism when a problem arises? Every organization with Scouts in their name.

 

There is nothing wrong with any type of organization protecting their "name" with exclusivity.

[packsaddle]

OK, I re-read some of the messages and thought I might play the you-know-who's advocate. I have considered a question similar to jmenand's almost every time I drive around our area. I will see a Baptist church, then soon I see a Missionary Baptist Church, and later a Primitive Baptist Church...you get the idea. Evidently no-one has established 'Baptist' as a legal trademark. Or is there something else at play here?

>Perhaps they really are all the same thing, just marketed differently to attract a broader customer base.

>Perhaps they don't care about the infringement.

>Perhaps they HAVE considered legal action but don't really know themselves who has legal priority...and are afraid to find out. They don't want to take the risk.

>Perhaps they foresee the moment when the judge asks someone to explain the real difference between a 'Primitive Baptist' and a 'Missionary' one. And no one knows the answer.

H'mmm

I could just as well use the Presbyterians here, or in the view of my Catholic wife, ALL of the protestant flavors lumped into one melange. It just gets too gooey to deal with.

 

But somewhere along the way, BSA established a legal storefront and with that comes the right to suppress rival infringements. I see this more as a trademark dispute than a true monopoly. The method is an idea and because it is widely known any hope of holding onto a monopoly on the method is futile.

Therefore it is possible that the absence of large copycat organizations cannot be explained by the name alone.

 

>Finally, Perhaps once the interested parties associated with BSA are accounted for, there are few left that could possibly support any rival organization. In essence, this alternative would mean that any real decline in BSA numbers means a decline of general interest by the nation in the basic idea represented by BSA. How's that for an alternative?

 

[dan]

Funny you should bring up Ford. They are in the process of stopping all unauthorized used of their trademarks. This is mostly for names like mustang, and Model A for the people selling reproduction parts. Many other car manufactures already have done the same thing, Ferria(sp?) has put many people of of business that has used their name.

 

 

Edit, the below is from another website which gives a little more info, it is not my writing or thoughts. I was going to give a link to the website but some of the people posting on this subject are a little worked up over there and some comments are not scout like.

 

Ford is demanding many aftermarket auto parts companies remove trademarks such as "Mustang" from their names, according to columnist Donald Farr. And it doesn't stop there. Apparently, "the matter will only be resolved when everyoneparts companies, Web sites, even magazinesstops using the Mustang name." A Ford source said Ford has decided to "reclaim its legacy" by protecting its trademarks and logos. Even terms such as "Stang" will be deemed infringement. Ford has reportedly demanded many companies turn over for destruction all signs, banners, business cards, and stationary for destruction, and transfer web domain names to Ford. Ford has also demanded that companies hand over $5,000 in damages. If they don't comply with Ford's demands, they face a Ford-powered lawsuit seeking $100,000, according to Farr. The Leftlane Perspective: Ford may rightly feel the need to protect its trademarks, but does it really need $5,000 in damages from a few companies? Moreover, is demanding $5,000 in damages with the threat of a $100,000 lawsuit legally justifiable?

(This message has been edited by dan)

[fgoodwin]

Packsaddle writes:BSA is quite aware of this and the fallout from their win at the Supreme Court, in essence, affects the revenue flow when funding agencies (the customers) turn away.Are you saying BSA membership policies have led to a decline in membership? I've read that more than once. And I've also asked more then once for any real evidence of a cause and effect.

 

Because Scouts Canada has no policy against homosexuals or girls (altho they might still refuse membership to atheists -- I'm not sure), yet Scouts Canada's membership declines are even worse than BSA's.

 

Packsaddle, how do you reconcile those two sets of facts?

[Beavah]

There is nothing wrong with any type of organization protecting their "name" with exclusivity.

 

There is nothing illegal about trying to do so within the American system.

 

Whether it's right or wrong to do so depends on other factors.

 

In this case, I feel it is dishonest because the name Scouting, and the Scouting program in its methods, form and function were not created by the BSA, and therefore are not the BSA's to protect.

 

The BSA knows this. To force other organizations out of business because they use a derivative of the international scouting methods developed by BP, when the BSA's program is itself just a derivative of those same works, is not honorable.

 

It is like a bratty child being given a toy by a parent, and insisting that no other child can have a toy that looks like his.

 

 

 

 

[SR540Beaver]

Beavah,

 

BSA doesn't run anyone out of business. You can start a competing organization under any name you want as long as you don't call it Scouts. You can even organize it like Boy Scouts and quote Baden Powell. The BSA doesn't own Baden-Powell's legacy, name or writings. The BSA has simply trademarked and copyrighted certain words in the US and their competitors can't use them.....but they can still run a similiar organization under a different name. There is nothing dishonest about it.

[Beavah]

Sorry, SR540. The term "Scouting" is a term of prior art which was clearly in use by the worldwide movement prior to its use by the BSA, and indeed prior to the formation of the BSA. The term remains in common parlance worldwide referring to the youth movement begun by BP.

 

For the BSA to claim ownership of the term "Scouting" in reference to a program of youth development is dishonest. It is the moral equivalent of a person stealing another person's invention and then patenting it for their own exclusive use.

 

I'm a strong BSA and scouting supporter, but a spade is a spade.

 

 

 

 

[SR540Beaver]

Beavah,

 

I said in the US of A, not the world. Baden-Powell was around when the BSA started, evidently he didn't take exception to it.

[BrentAllen]

There is nothing dishonest about the BSA copyrighting their name. The WOSM cannot come into the US and tell us we must allow other groups to use the word "Scout" or "Scouting." This is a matter of US law.

 

The WOSM recognizes only one Scout organization per country. A country can have more than one Scout group, but only one is recognized.