Yet another reason to laugh at Texas A&M

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 5:33 pm

IndyFrisco wrote:
BSmack wrote:BTW: The Seahawks were flying their flag before A&M ever filed for their trademark.
And if two drug companies make the same product and one gets to the patent office first, not to mention the company that made it first, what happens?

You can call it stupid all you want. It's your opinion. Opinions generally don't hold up against law in court. Keep reeling though. :roll:

You are comparing apples (trademarks) to oranges (patents). I know you went to one of the lesser schools in Texas, but let's try to stay on point.

In the U.S., failure to use a trademark for this period of time, aside from the corresponding impact on product quality, will result in abandonment of the mark, whereby any party may use the mark. An abandoned mark is not irrevocably in the public domain, but may instead be re-registered by any party which has re-established exclusive and active use, including the original mark owner. Further, if a court rules that a trademark has become "generic" through common use (such that the mark no longer performs the essential trademark function and the average consumer no longer considers that exclusive rights attach to it), the corresponding registration may also be ruled invalid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark# ... genericide

I can't think of anything more generic than the term "12th Man".

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 5:35 pm

IndyFrisco wrote:And if two drug companies make the same product and one gets to the patent office first, not to mention the company that made it first, what happens?

The patent attornies do extensive research to determine whether any other company has marketed the same product in the past, and if so, for how long. If the other company has been making said drug for over 20 years, then Company A can go ahead with the patenting process, but they're pretty much SOL when it comes to trying to block Company B from marketing the drug they've sold for 20+ years.

Not sure what the point is, since the issue is trademarks and not patents, although similar rules apply. "Patent" is on a new product or innovation, "trademark" is the name it's given.

While I root for any and all setbacks that might befall the Seahawks, I don't see this working out for A&M. The Hawks were using the phrase for years before A&M applied for the trademark, and it certainly could be argued that "the 12th man" was a marketing tool used by the Seahawks organization, and as such couldn't be trademarked after-the-fact.

Interesting case.

But fuck the Seahawks for being such unbelievable gravytrainers, and fuck aTm for being such unbelievably whiney little bitches.

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 5:43 pm

Dins,

Like I said in the CFB thread, I could care less what the legal outcome will be. It would be nice if we could retain it, but I'm more concerned with the shit football team we've put on the field the past 7 years.

BS,

To name a couple… Xerox and Kleenex

Please tell me you were kidding on the not being able to name anything more generic. I wouldn’t be bashing anyone’s education if I were you…

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 5:48 pm

The Chickens are gravytraining the 12th man? Lotsa luck with that. Detroit's going to be black and gold from top to bottom, or from rockpile to charred rafter, or whatever.

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 5:49 pm

^^^ Rock Chalk Seahawk ^^^

Moorese · Post by **Moorese** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 5:54 pm

Dinsdale wrote:I don't see this working out for A&M.

Even if it is somewhat justified, the incessant footstomping and silly little lawsuit in some state court in Texas will have absolutely no impact on the Seahawks' use of the phrase, "12th Man." And if it ever becomes troublesome enough, Papa Allen will simply buy College Junction, evacuate all the goofy poofs in cub scout uniforms and backwoods sheepfucker types, demolish the joint, and build some stupid fucking multi-colored museum.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 5:54 pm

IndyFrisco wrote:Dins,

Like I said in the CFB thread, I could care less what the legal outcome will be. It would be nice if we could retain it, but I'm more concerned with the shit football team we've put on the field the past 7 years.

BS,

To name a couple… Xerox and Kleenex

Please tell me you were kidding on the not being able to name anything more generic. I wouldn’t be bashing anyone’s education if I were you…

I'll bash on your piss poor education whenever I feel like it. Maybe if you spent a little more time hitting the books and a little less time building 90 foot tall bonfires you would know that the trademarks for both Xerox and Kleenex were defended. Same with Band-Aid and Frigidaire. The difference with the 12th man "trademark" is that the Aggies didn't bother to register the mark until AFTER it had become generic.

In other words, it would be like Harvard or Yale trying to trademark the name "football" because they played it first.

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 6:26 pm

I know they were defended. That's why I used them as an example. It doesn't mean they still aren't generic terms.

http://www.trademarxonline.com/licensor ... tail&lid=1

A&M is in the process of defending it. Xerox and Kleenex did not defend their trademarks until their commonality was challenged years later either.

The 12th Man will always be referred to, but if it is defended, no one may refer to it for profit.

Dumbass · Post by **Dumbass** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 6:49 pm

A & M should petition to make their 12th man eligible so maybe they could win a few more ball games and actually be known for football instead of this frivolous horseshit or creating human deathsicles. 12th man? Shit, it looks like they need 15. Drop the fight and let a team that actually does something use it during their successful run.

For their loss, at about 5:00pm today, I will manufacture my 12th log and gladly Fed Ex it over as compensation. :P

Caution: It is flammable when wet with a frangrance that rivals The Texas Steers' finest.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 11:06 pm

IndyFrisco wrote:I know they were defended. That's why I used them as an example. It doesn't mean they still aren't generic terms.

http://www.trademarxonline.com/licensor ... tail&lid=1

A&M is in the process of defending it. Xerox and Kleenex did not defend their trademarks until their commonality was challenged years later either.

The 12th Man will always be referred to, but if it is defended, no one may refer to it for profit.

I still don't see where any of those logos look like this.

Furthermore, your link is nothing but a listing of trademarks A&M has filed for. What's yer fucking point? I think we can all agree that A&M claimed this trademark before anybody else used it.

Not that anybody else would WANT it.

But the 12th man trademark wasn't filed for untill 1990. By 1990, numerous other teams, fans and writers had used the term 12th man in ways completely unrelated to A&M. Comparing that commonality to that of Xerox or Kleenex who filed for their trademarks BEFORE the marks had become generic is yet again an apples and oranges comparison.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 11:33 pm

Just wanted to RACK Dumbass.

And Indy -- it's not a bad idea that when posting, you should keep in mind the mantra "if I'm making BSmack look intelligent, I'm probably on the wrong end of the argument." Just sayin.

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 1:52 pm

Once again, it's not the flag that is flying that A&M is trying to protect against. It is future merchandising. I don't think the Chickenhawks have done anything to this point as far as merchandising 12th Man things. A #12 jersey isn't an infringement as far as I'm concerned.

If they began to sell shirts that said "Qwest Field: Home of The 12th Man", well, that's where I'd say A&M has a legit case since they have it trademarked. You can sit there and say they've only applied for it all you want, but the slogan The 12th Man is legally trademarked by A&M.

So, as it stands right now, Chickenhawks have not, to my knowledge, infringed on the trademark. If they do, A&M has a case. Will the case hold up in court? I don't know. That's not what I am arguing.

Dins,

See above. I think BS is arguing one thing while I'm arguing another. The term The 12th Man has not been deemed generic in a court of law as of yet. Until it has been, the TM is all A&M's.

A Registered Trade Mark involves the formal registration of a name or mark that is used to identify a particular product or service. Anyone else who uses the Registered Trademark is liable to legal proceedings for trademark infringement. A Registered Trademark is usually identified by the circled R symbol.

Texas Aggies®
Texas A&M University®
Texas A&M®
12th Man®
12th Mania®
Fightin' Texas Aggie Band®
TAMUTM
AggieTM
AggiesTM
Wrecking CrewTM
Gig 'em AggiesTM
Texas Aggie BonfireTM
The Twelfth ManTM

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 2:07 pm

IndyFrisco wrote:Once again, it's not the flag that is flying that A&M is trying to protect against. It is future merchandising. I don't think the Chickenhawks have done anything to this point as far as merchandising 12th Man things. A #12 jersey isn't an infringement as far as I'm concerned.

If they began to sell shirts that said "Qwest Field: Home of The 12th Man", well, that's where I'd say A&M has a legit case since they have it trademarked. You can sit there and say they've only applied for it all you want, but the slogan The 12th Man is legally trademarked by A&M.

So, as it stands right now, Chickenhawks have not, to my knowledge, infringed on the trademark. If they do, A&M has a case. Will the case hold up in court? I don't know. That's not what I am arguing.

But that's what the A&M AD is arguing.

The school sent letters to the Seahawks in 2004 and 2005, asking the team to stop its use of the “12th Man” slogan, Moore said, but the team never responded.

This is not going well for you.

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 2:07 pm

Keep saying the trademark has only been applied for, dickweed.

Code: Select all

Word Mark 		12TH MAN 
Goods and Services 	IC 014. US 028. G & S: jewelry. FIRST USE: 19890000. FIRST USEIN COMMERCE: 19890000
IC 041. US 107. G & S: entertainment services, namely organizingand conducting intercollegiate sporting events. FIRST USE: 19220000.FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19220000
 
Mark Drawing Code 	(1) TYPED DRAWING 
Design Search Code  
Serial Number 	74560726 
Filing Date 	August 12, 1994 
Current Filing Basis 	1A 
Original Filing Basis 	1A 
Published for Opposition October 24, 1995 
Registration Number 	1948306 
Registration Date 	January 16, 1996 
Owner (REGISTRANT) Texas A&M University INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATIONTEXAS College Station TEXAS 778431230 
Attorney of Record 	MOLLY BUCK RICHARD 
Prior Registrations 	1612053 
Type of Mark TRADEMARK. SERVICE MARK 
Register 		PRINCIPAL 
Affidavit Text 	SECT 15. SECT 8 (6-YR). 
Live/Dead Indicator 	LIVE

http://www.mycorporation.com/trademarks ... 89qcov.2.8

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 2:09 pm

IndyFrisco wrote:Keep saying the trademark has only been applied for, dickweed.

Code: Select all

Word Mark 		12TH MAN 
Goods and Services 	IC 014. US 028. G & S: jewelry. FIRST USE: 19890000. FIRST USEIN COMMERCE: 19890000
IC 041. US 107. G & S: entertainment services, namely organizingand conducting intercollegiate sporting events. FIRST USE: 19220000.FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19220000
 
Mark Drawing Code 	(1) TYPED DRAWING 
Design Search Code  
Serial Number 	74560726 
Filing Date 	August 12, 1994 
Current Filing Basis 	1A 
Original Filing Basis 	1A 
Published for Opposition October 24, 1995 
Registration Number 	1948306 
Registration Date 	January 16, 1996 
Owner (REGISTRANT) Texas A&M University INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATIONTEXAS College Station TEXAS 778431230 
Attorney of Record 	MOLLY BUCK RICHARD 
Prior Registrations 	1612053 
Type of Mark TRADEMARK. SERVICE MARK 
Register 		PRINCIPAL 
Affidavit Text 	SECT 15. SECT 8 (6-YR). 
Live/Dead Indicator 	LIVE

http://www.mycorporation.com/trademarks ... 89qcov.2.8

Keep missing the point that the term was generic before the Aggies ever applied for it.

The Seahawks, who play Pittsburgh in Sunday’s Super Bowl, have recognized their followers as a “12th Man” since the mid-1980s, when capacity crowds turned the now-demolished Kingdome into one of the NFL’s loudest venues. The team retired the No. 12 in 1984.

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 2:13 pm

IndyFrisco wrote:So, as it stands right now, Chickenhawks have not, to my knowledge, infringed on the trademark. If they do, A&M has a case. Will the case hold up in court? I don't know. That's not what I am arguing.

BSmack wrote: But that's what the A&M AD is arguing.

The school sent letters to the Seahawks in 2004 and 2005, asking the team to stop its use of the “12th Man” slogan, Moore said, but the team never responded.

But hey, I guess the AD is right...

Anyone who uses your mark, or something very similar, for goods and services you are protected for can be sued for infringement. There are certain defences against such an action, but they are limited in scope.

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 2:15 pm

BSmack wrote:Keep missing the point that the term was generic before the Aggies ever applied for it.

I've shown you a link where it is protected.

Show me a link where the term has been deemed generic by a court of law and I'll concede. Otherwise, you're just continuing to speak out of your ass.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 3:07 pm

IndyFrisco wrote:
BSmack wrote:Keep missing the point that the term was generic before the Aggies ever applied for it.
I've shown you a link where it is protected.

Show me a link where the term has been deemed generic by a court of law and I'll concede. Otherwise, you're just continuing to speak out of your ass.

The court of reality has already ruled in my favor. Any dipshit can file for and obtain a trademark. That doesn't make the mark inviolate. Especialy when the "mark" in question was in common usage years before said filing.

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 3:18 pm

So your "proof" is "everyone says so".

Thanks for taking me back to the playground. Dismissed.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 3:31 pm

IndyFrisco wrote:So your "proof" is "everyone says so".

That's pretty much the standard when determining genericide.

Any other stupid questions?

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 3:38 pm

No furhter questions. You go by what "everyone says" (blanket statement, btw). I go by what the law says. Until it is governed that the term is generic, which may happen, it is protected. Sorry that you can't refute that.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 3:42 pm

IndyFrisco wrote:No furhter questions. You go by what "everyone says" (blanket statement, btw). I go by what the law says. Until it is governed that the term is generic, which may happen, it is protected. Sorry that you can't refute that.

It is the law that says you cannot trademark a commonly used term. But feel free to keep spinning.

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 4:00 pm

In the process of registering a trademark, there is a test for genericide. It is up to the examining attorney to decide whether the term is generic or not. It was deemed not generic when the trademark was granted. Whether they rubber stamp this process or not, it WAS granted.

That's not spining. That's the law.

Trademark Manual of Examination Procedures (TMEP) - 4th Edition

1209.01(c)(i)

There are clauses that say the trademark can be challenged at a later date. Until it is challenged and legally reversed, the trademark is protected.

What do you not get about this?

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 4:11 pm

ltr: BSmack, Frisco

Headhunter · Post by **Headhunter** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 4:44 pm

IndyFrisco wrote:In the process of registering a trademark, there is a test for genericide. It is up to the examining attorney to decide whether the term is generic or not. It was deemed not generic when the trademark was granted. Whether they rubber stamp this process or not, it WAS granted.

That's not spining. That's the law.

Trademark Manual of Examination Procedures (TMEP) - 4th Edition

1209.01(c)(i)

There are clauses that say the trademark can be challenged at a later date. Until it is challenged and legally reversed, the trademark is protected.

What do you not get about this?

I think that pretty well sums it up.

The Seahawks can dispute the validity of the Trademark, but until that dispute is adjudicated, the Seahawks or anyone else using the "12th man" slogan for profit is in violation of the law. Pretty clear cut. They can weasle out of it with a court dispute, but that has yet to happen.

Making a decision that you "think" a trademark falls under common usuage and marketing merchandise based on your "opinion" is a very actionable stance.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 5:11 pm

IndyFrisco wrote:In the process of registering a trademark, there is a test for genericide. It is up to the examining attorney to decide whether the term is generic or not. It was deemed not generic when the trademark was granted. Whether they rubber stamp this process or not, it WAS granted.

That's not spining. That's the law.

Does your dick get hard when you type that?

Seriously, get over yourself. Anybody who doesn't think that process was nothing more than a rubber stamp is as big an idiot as you are.

But hey, I'd love to see A&M try to sue Paul Allen. This isn't like trying to sue some parking lot vendor at the TCU game.

Moorese · Post by **Moorese** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 5:42 pm

BSmack wrote:The court of reality

Never been in one of those.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 5:45 pm

Moorese wrote:
BSmack wrote:The court of reality
Never been in one of those.

Are you the 12th man?

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 5:49 pm

BSmack wrote:
IndyFrisco wrote:In the process of registering a trademark, there is a test for genericide. It is up to the examining attorney to decide whether the term is generic or not. It was deemed not generic when the trademark was granted. Whether they rubber stamp this process or not, it WAS granted.

That's not spining. That's the law.
Does your dick get hard when you type that?

My dick got hard when you lobbed a softball with your "everybody says so" stance. That was just me knocking it out of the park and blasting one all over your face.

But hey, I'd love to see A&M try to sue Paul Allen. This isn't like trying to sue some parking lot vendor at the TCU game.

So now that you lost the "legal" issue, you're trying to ride the next issue for salvation. I've already stated it is likely it would get reversed. If it does, so be it. I've already stated that as well. Of course, that's for a judge to decide, not for your asshole of an opinion.

Just don't go try to take things I've alredy said and conceded to and use that as your argument for an "I told you so" later.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 5:52 pm

IndyFrisco wrote:I've already stated it is likely it would get reversed.

Then why is your mouth still moving? Just step along and deal with the fact the the rest of the world thinks your school to be a joke.

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 6:07 pm

BSmack posts that using the 12th Man is not against the law.

Frisco posts proof that it is.

BSmack backpedals and changes the subject.

Add BSmack to the long list that will not admit when they are wrong. :roll:

Go ahead and get your last post in. I know you're one of those last word types, too. I've already got match here.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 6:40 pm

^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Is resorting to running "last word" smack in a desperate attempt to escape further floggings.

You yourself admitted that if challenged, the 12th man trademark would likely be voided. Which, if your second rate education had been serving you well, you would have realized was my whole point. Nobody is disputing that A&M has filed for an obtained a trademark. The bone of contention is the validity of a trademark that is patently generic.

Moorese · Post by **Moorese** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 6:46 pm

BSmack wrote:Are you the 12th man?

Only if the Hawks win.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 9:00 pm

capacity crowds.... Kingdome

Wow, talk about revisionist history.

Moorese wrote:
BSmack wrote:Are you the 12th man?
Only if the Hawks win.

And this folks, is proof beyond any reasonable doubt that Moorese is in fact from Seattle, rather than trolling as someone from Seattle.

I think the Seahawks should apply for a trademark on the word "bandwagon."

Mississippi Neck · Post by **Mississippi Neck** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 11:02 pm

BSmack wrote: ...genericide.

The mass killing of generic drugs??

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 11:09 pm

Mississippi Neck wrote:
BSmack wrote: ...genericide.
The mass killing of generic drugs??

It's a term that folks from College Station probably haven't heard of yet.

genericide (juh.NAYR.uh.syd) n. The process by which a brand name becomes a generic name for an entire product category.

Example Citation:
And since we're talking trademark trivia here, be advised that heroin, zipper, aspirin, escalator, granola, yo-yo and linoleum had heydays once upon a time as proper nouns, replete with capital letters and the distinction due singular entities.

Today, all have become common nouns, bereft of monetary value, victims of "genericide". This term was coined by marketing mavens to denote trademarks and brand names repeatedly lower-cased in everyday parlance. Usage demoted them to the humble rank of "generic descriptor."
—Scott Winokur, "The name of the game is the name," The San Francisco Examiner, February 21, 1995

Earliest Citation:
On Feb. 22, 1983, by refusing to grant certiorari, the Supreme Court let stand a decision of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that invalidated the trademark registration of the term "MONOPOLY" for Parker Brothers' ever-popular real estate board game. The 9th Circuit declared that the term "MONOPOLY" had become generic, i.e. had become a common descriptive name for that type of board game and thus no longer afforded trademark rights to Parker Brothers, the owner of the "MONOPOLY" trademark registration. ...

The "Monopoly" case presents several difficult issues concerning "genericide" of a trademark — the deterioration of a once valid, protectible trademark into a common term available for use by anyone. Of major concern is the 9th Circuit's use of a novel test emphasizing purchaser motivation to determine the genericness of the "MONOPOLY" mark. According to the 9th Circuit, the genericness of a once-established trademark depends not on any perception that the public may have concerning the jeopardized mark, but rather on what motivates a significant portion of the product's purchasers to buy the trademarked product: a desire to have the product or purchaser loyalty to a known producer. Source-loyalty motivation may be the requirement for mark validity if the 9th Circuit's motivation test becomes the standard.
—Saul Lefkowitz and Barry W. Graham, "Court Rules that 'Monopoly' Has Suffered Genericide," Legal Times, March 7, 1983

http://www.wordspy.com/words/genericide.asp

Moorese · Post by **Moorese** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 11:19 pm

Dinsdale wrote:And this folks, is proof beyond any reasonable doubt that Moorese is in fact from Seattle, rather than trolling as someone from Seattle.

I think the Seahawks should apply for a trademark on the word "bandwagon."

Some would call it "bandwagoning." I would call it "decades of abysmal failure creating a justifiable pessimism regarding the prospect that anything good will ever happen to any of Seattle's professional sports franchises."* **

Are folks here happy the Hawks are in the SuperBowl? Yep...at least those of us that believe it.

Will we get stupendously bent and then gloat like bandwagoning motherfuckers if the Hawks actually win a game many of us are unconvinced they will even be allowed to play in? Hell yes!

Are we waiting for the other shoe to drop? Uhm...yeah...pretty much.

You don't see me dropping coin. Been there, been fucked like that.

* I was 12 in 1979.
** No, the Storm doesn't count...as if I had to say it.

Moorese · Post by **Moorese** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 11:36 pm

Damn. Spot on.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/st ... ple/060201

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Wed Feb 01, 2006 11:49 pm

Moorese wrote:Some would call it "bandwagoning." I would call it "decades of abysmal failure creating a justifiable pessimism regarding the prospect that anything good will ever happen to any of Seattle's professional sports franchises."

All due respect Mo, but frankly, you don't count. Since there's probably less than 100 people in the Seattle area that are actually from the Seattle area, a "Seahawks fan," by definition, is a bandwagoner." Those 100 exceptions make up such a small percentage, that it's hardly worth a mention.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 12:02 am

Moorese wrote:Damn. Spot on.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/st ... ple/060201

No, it's not.

Is this writer even from the U&L?

From that column --

7. Roethlisberger is a finely aged Whidbey Island cheese with a slightly nutty, piquant flavor, perfectly matched with a temperamental Columbia Valley pinot.

Very, very few acres of pinot in the Columbia Valley, hence the very small amount of pinot coming from the Culombia Valley. One would think that a true U&Ler would know their appelations, and realize that the Columbia Valley has entirely the wrong climate for pinot. Too hot.

And listed as a misconception --

1. We invented the Wave.

Of course, regardless whether I was a transplant or a Seattle native, I would try to distance myself from this. If by "we" he meant Hagsfans, then he'd be correct. If "we" was in reference to Seattlites...well, guess again, Bucko. Sorry if the memory hurts, but it's a little too late to rewrite history now...you made your bed when you decided to be a beer-spilling johnny-jump-up...now you can forever lie in that bed. Although there's some asswipe from Oakland trying to take credit for the wave, frankly, he's lying. Speaks to the mental state of anyone who would admit to that, no? It's well chronicled that Huskyfan was the tard responsible for the wave...the name Rob Weller ring any bells?