Idea: Start a University

Columbia is also the name of one of the space shuttles that was famously destroyed in a terrible accident.  Do you really want to have your academy of free thinking to be associated with such a high profile propaganda tool of the conspiracy? 

Not to mention that Columbia University might not appreciate the possible confusion between the two names.

Columbia is also the name of one of the space shuttles that was famously destroyed in a terrible accident.  Do you really want to have your academy of free thinking to be associated with such a high profile propaganda tool of the conspiracy? 

Not to mention that Columbia University might not appreciate the possible confusion between the two names.

Named in defiance of the propaganda I imagine.

Columbia is also the name of one of the space shuttles that was famously destroyed in a terrible accident.  Do you really want to have your academy of free thinking to be associated with such a high profile propaganda tool of the conspiracy?

Perhaps, then, it's appropriate that Columbia represents a failure of the Conspiracy.

Not to mention that Columbia University might not appreciate the possible confusion between the two names

California Southern University sounds similar to the University of Southern California, yet both are independently owned schools.

http://www.utexas.edu/world/univ/alpha/

Also, there are many schools in the US which even take on names identical down to the letter. There are two schools called Columbia College, two Bethany Colleges, three Union Colleges, four Saint Joseph's Colleges, and three Southwestern Colleges.

I think the "University of Columbia" is fair game.

I think the "University of Columbia" is fair game.

Well, if you're wrong, don't be surprised if you hear from Columbia University's School of Law.

Let me know how this goes, I may be interested in applying for admission to further my education.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 22, 2010, 09:15:21 PM

I think the "University of Columbia" is fair game.

Well, if you're wrong, don't be surprised if you hear from Columbia University's School of Law.

I believe they have a trademark on "Columbia University" but not on the "University of Columbia".

With ads like "College Degree in 4 Months, Not 4 Years" I think UoC might be popular. It's certainly possible to learn a trade in 4 months or less.

The student contacts us, tells us the major or career he or she would like to pursue, whether they are working, and we will build a custom tailored curriculum around that. The student will be assigned an adviser and over a period the student will watch videos, submit homework, and complete assignments, under the guidance of their adviser.

For example, perhaps someone would like to become an administrative assistant. As an administrative assistant one would need a familiarity with things like Quickbooks, Excel, and business terminology. Over the course of several months the student watches introductory and intermediate quickbooks/excel videos the adviser has selected from the UoC video repository, taking detailed notes which will be submitted for review.

Fortunately for us schools have fair use privileges when it comes to using copyrighted material in the classroom.

Odd how coincidences show up. Our biggest project here is opening a new public university for one of the mid-Atlantic states. Let's just say that accreditation aint' gonna happen for you, Tom.

Quote from: markjo on September 22, 2010, 09:33:14 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 22, 2010, 09:15:21 PM

I think the "University of Columbia" is fair game.

Well, if you're wrong, don't be surprised if you hear from Columbia University's School of Law.

I believe they have a trademark on "Columbia University" but not the "University of Columbia".

If so, then they can enforce that trademark if they feel that your name can cause confusion and dilute or harm their own trade mark.

With ads like "College Degree in 4 Months, Not 4 Years" I think UoC might be popular. It's certainly possible to learn a trade in 4 months.

I imagine it only takes a few hours to learn how to learn the fast food trade.

The student contacts us, tells us the major or career he or she would like to pursue, whether they are working, and we will build a custom tailored curriculum around that. The student will be assigned an advisor and over a period the student will watch videos, submit homework, and complete assignments, under the guidance of his advisor.

For example, perhaps someone would like to become an administrative assistant. As an administrative assistant one would need a familiarity with things like Quickbooks, Excel, and business terminology. Over the course of several months the student watches introductory and intermediate quickbooks/excel videos the adviser has selected from the UoC video repository, taking detailed notes which will be submitted as homework for review.

Tom, you are describing a trade school or a career college, not a university.  There is a difference.

Odd how coincidences show up. Our biggest project here is opening a new public university for one of the mid-Atlantic states. Let's just say that accreditation aint' gonna happen for you, Tom.

Accreditors are private organizations, run by schools themselves. Accreditation is solely a private affair in which a private group of schools gives a seal of approval to another. Accreditation is not a government function.

In the world of accreditation there are numerous accrediting bodies, of various quality, which range from "Accreditation Mills" which merely sell accreditation, to Non-Traditional Accreditors which accredit assessment schools, to Career School Accreditors who accredit Career Schools, to Regional Accreditors who accredit Traditional Schools.

Finding an appropriate accreditor to accredit UoC would be no hard task.

Even if the UoC wanted to team up with another college to create an accrediting group for self regulation, to accredit themselves, there would be no problem with that. Like I said, accreditors are nothing more than a private group of people who say "yep, looks good to me".

In fact, it's a myth that accreditation guarantees quality in a curriculum. Regional Accreditors, for example, don't even look at a school's curriculum before granting accreditation. Regional Accreditors only vet a college's financial stability, mission statements, and faculty qualifications. Quality of a curriculum is not touched or analyzed, being considered an objective matter appropriate for Specialized Accreditors. Plenty of colleges go around claiming Regional Accreditation as if it represented a seal of educational quality, when it does not.

If so, then they can enforce that trademark if they feel that your name can cause confusion and dilute or harm their own trade mark.

Fortunately University of Columbia is not the same mark as Columbia University.

Tom, you are describing a trade school or a career college, not a university.  There is a difference.

There will be various research and lecture functions to the school as well.

Zetetic articles and papers can be published for and maintained by the University of Columbia. For example, some of our members are in the process of writing books and papers on various subjects of interest. Their works can be maintained and publicly accessible by the University of Columbia.

Also, if a member of this website were to ever lecture on Zetecism or Flat Earth Theory at another college, as Samuel Birley Rowbotham and Charles K Johnson did in their lifetimes, he or she can do so as a "Visiting lecturer from the University of Columbia".

I feel that the undergraduate school of UoC should operate as a career school as I've described, with videos lectures and assessments for specific career types. The Undergraduate School will be the main funding source for UoC, and the most popular, allowing the school to be competitive in the marketplace, providing short and inexpensive routes to a college degree.

The Graduate School, however, will be primarily research based, and quite different than instruction at the undergraduate level. At the graduate level it is assumed that the student is a maser of his field and must now contribute something substantial to it. There will be no courses at the graduate level. At the graduate level the student spends his time working on a major research dissertation, which will be his or her primarily project for the school.

Funding for the school will not be an issue. Both the Undergraduate and Graduate schools of UoC can operate on a shoe string budget with minimal staff. At the undergraduate level the student is basically teaching themselves with videos their adviser selects, and at the graduate level the student keeps themselves busy writing their dissertation. UoC will not need to invest heavily in a campus or staff. Also, as a Non-Profit, UoC will not be burdened with taxes.

Eventually, as the school grows it could even branch out into operating real physical classes with paid instructors. Even Harvard started small, after all.

Quote

If so, then they can enforce that trademark if they feel that your name can cause confusion and dilute or harm their own trade mark.

Fortunately University of Columbia is not the same mark as Columbia University.

It doesn't need to be.  It just needs to be close enough to cause confusion to the public.

It doesn't need to be.  It just needs to be close enough to cause confusion to the public.

Besides Columbia College and a Columbia Acadamy, there's also a Columbia Southern University, a Columbia International University, and a now closed Columbia State University, which have all lasted many years without being sued by Columbia University.

I think there's room for a University of Columbia.

Columbia is a poetic analogy for "New Frontier," or "New World," not really a trademark or brand. Columbia personifies the concept of Zeteticism perfectly.

Quote from: ClockTower on September 22, 2010, 09:40:38 PM

Odd how coincidences show up. Our biggest project here is opening a new public university for one of the mid-Atlantic states. Let's just say that accreditation aint' gonna happen for you, Tom.

Accreditors are private organizations, run by schools themselves.

False, they are not run by the schools themselves. I've survived many accrediations and the school had absolutely no control over the accreditator, I assure you. Is this one of those lies like watching people across the bay throwing a frisbee? There's no way an investor isn't going to detect your character flaws.

False, they are not run by the schools themselves. I've survived many accrediations and the school had absolutely no control over the accreditator, I assure you. Is this one of those lies like watching people across the bay throwing a frisbee? There's no way an investor isn't going to detect your character flaws.

Accreditors aren't investors.

Yes, accreditors are groups of educators from the schools they accredit. The accreditation system in the United States is built on on the concept of self regulation of schools.

If the Columbia College and Mrs. Lee's College of the Arts wanted to form an accrediting guild to regulate themselves, it wouldn't be  any different than the concept of self regulation already in place.

Columbia is a poetic analogy for "New Frontier," or "New World," not really a trademark or brand. Columbia personifies the concept of Zeteticism perfectly.

Sure are poetic hopes you have there. As have been mentioned earlier you can also connect other dots and interpret it as total failure. And I really don't see how your Zeteticism can bring something new to arena.

Quote

False, they are not run by the schools themselves. I've survived many accrediations and the school had absolutely no control over the accreditator, I assure you. Is this one of those lies like watching people across the bay throwing a frisbee? There's no way an investor isn't going to detect your character flaws.

Accreditors aren't investors.

Yes, accreditors are groups of educators from the schools they accredit. The accreditation system in the United States is built on on the concept of self regulation of schools.

I ddin't say accreditors were investors. Do pay attention. Again, just saying it doesn't make it true. The accreditation system in the US is not built on on [sic] that concept. The Board of Regents demands independence of the accreditors. Perhaps, California is lax, but I doubt it. Your dreams are not going to get your investors to contribute to building a school, let alone a University.

Sure are poetic hopes you have there. As have been mentioned earlier you can also connect other dots and interpret it as total failure. And I really don't see how your Zeteticism can bring something new to arena.

Samuel Birley Rowbotham's Zetitic Philosophy is an exercise in skepticism to come to the absolute truth of a matter. It's a form of Empiricism in which all possibilities are assessed, facts collected, where the conclusion arrived at is essentially a quotient; which, if the details are correctly worked, must of necessity be true, and beyond the reach or power of contradiction. It's a philosophy where all "hypothesis" is thrown out the window. Only possibilities which can be demonstrated, tested, and peer reviewed are considered.

A Zetetic is a free-thinker; one whose views are based on logic and reason independent of authority and blind faith.

Rowbotham has an excellent chapter on the subject of Zeteticism here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za04.htm

The concept of Zeteticism is a fundamental method of inquiry which replaces the Scientific Method and traditional dogma, and can be applied to many fields and majors.

I ddin't say accreditors were investors. Do pay attention. Again, just saying it doesn't make it true. The accreditation system in the US is not built on on [sic] that concept. The Board of Regents demands independence of the accreditors. Perhaps, California is lax, but I doubt it.

Go to any Accreditor's website and look at the evaluation staff.

http://www.msche.org/?Nav1=EVALUATORS&Nav2=WHOHAVESERVED

It's composed of people from the schools they accredit:

http://www.msche.org/institutions_directory.asp

Ergo, you're wrong.

Your dreams are not going to get your investors to contribute to building a school, let alone a University.

I don't need investors to fund a university. I've already detailed how it can run on a shoe string budget.

Fortunately University of Columbia is not the same mark as Columbia University.

Tom, you really don't understand. Ohio University isn't allowed the use of "Ohio" in its logos, except by license from The Ohio State University. I'm sure the Columbia has the same type of trademark on "Columbia". Do stop this inane dreaming. If you're to have any chance of launching such as enterprise, you're going to have to deal with reality. I'm not sure that any FEer is up to the task.

Tom, you really don't understand. Ohio University isn't allowed the use of "Ohio" in its logos, except by license from The Ohio State University. I'm sure the Columbia has the same type of trademark on "Columbia". Do stop this inane dreaming. If you're to have any chance of launching such as enterprise, you're going to have to deal with reality. I'm not sure that any FEer is up to the task.

Neither Columbia College, Columbia University, Columbia International University, Columbia State University, Columbia Centro Universitario, or Columbia Community College have exclusive rights on the word "Columbia," nor can they.

Quote

Tom, you really don't understand. Ohio University isn't allowed the use of "Ohio" in its logos, except by license from The Ohio State University. I'm sure the Columbia has the same type of trademark on "Columbia". Do stop this inane dreaming. If you're to have any chance of launching such as enterprise, you're going to have to deal with reality. I'm not sure that any FEer is up to the task.

Neither Columbia College, Columbia University, Columbia International University, Columbia State University, Columbia Centro Universitario, or Columbia Community College have a trademark on the word "Columbia," nor can they.

Why can't they?

Why can't they?

They can have a mark on the full name of their school as displayed, but they can't trademark generic words like "Columbia" or "University".

Columbia is a term which has been in use for hundreds of years, and is used to name everything from mountains, ships, record companies, rivers, countries, to comic book companies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia

Quote

Why can't they?

They can have a mark on the full name of their school as displayed, but they can't trademark generic words like "Columbia" or "University".

Columbia is a term which has been in use for hundreds of years, and is used to name everything from mountains, ships, record companies, rivers, countries, to comic book companies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia

Wrong as usual. You really need to stop dreaming up excuses and deal with the real world, Tom.

Reference: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/clubsports/forms/Club%20Sports%20Style%20Guide.pdf.

All images, marks and logos contained within the Style Guide as well as the use of the
phrases Columbia, Columbia University, Columbia Club Sports or variations thereof are
the intellectual property of the Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York.

Their legal department can try to say that they have rights over the word "Columbia," but they don't.

That would be like "University of America" claiming rights over the word "America" and then suing any company or organization who uses the word "America" in their name.

Generic and common words can't be trademarked and isn't enforceable in court.

If you do a search at the patent office for "Columbia University" you can see that they have an exclusive mark for that name.

http://tess2.uspto.gov/

However, doing a search for "Columbia" brings up zero results. The patent office won't grant anyone exclusive rights for that word.

Quote

Sure are poetic hopes you have there. As have been mentioned earlier you can also connect other dots and interpret it as total failure. And I really don't see how your Zeteticism can bring something new to arena.

Samuel Birley Rowbotham's Zetitic Philosophy is an exercise in skepticism to come to the absolute truth of a matter. It's a form of Empiricism in which all possibilities are assessed, facts collected, where the conclusion arrived at is essentially a quotient; which, if the details are correctly worked, must of necessity be true, and beyond the reach or power of contradiction. It's a philosophy where all "hypothesis" is thrown out the window. Only possibilities which can be demonstrated, tested, and peer reviewed are considered.

A Zetetic is a free-thinker; one whose views are based on logic and reason independent of authority and blind faith.

Rowbotham has an excellent chapter on the subject of Zeteticism here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za04.htm

The concept of Zeteticism is a fundamental method of inquiry which replaces the Scientific Method and traditional dogma, and can be applied to many fields and majors.

Sure, I know that. But you for example don't display any of these qualities. No logic, no open mindedness, no independent of authority and you have a blind faith. So, as I may hope that Zeteticism is somewhat useful I can't see that you may carry it forward.

If you do a search at the patent office for "Columbia University" you can see that they have an exclusive mark for that name.

http://tess2.uspto.gov/

However, doing a search for "Columbia" brings up zero results. The patent office won't grant anyone exclusive rights for that word.

You should not start to practice law, as you're horrible at it. It's IP.

Generic and common words can't be trademarked and isn't enforceable in court.

*sigh*  Tell that to Microsoft when they trademarked the word "Windows".  You can trademark a generic word when referring to a specific context.

If you truly think you will have no trouble securing that name, I encourage you to try it. Do something for once instead of just talking about it.

I'd be willing to help you, Tom. Let me know when you derive any income from the UoC, note I didn't say profit. I'll then contact the Board of Trustees over at Columbia and report the IP infringement. That should speed up the process for you.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 23, 2010, 12:20:03 AM

Quote

Tom, you really don't understand. Ohio University isn't allowed the use of "Ohio" in its logos, except by license from The Ohio State University. I'm sure the Columbia has the same type of trademark on "Columbia". Do stop this inane dreaming. If you're to have any chance of launching such as enterprise, you're going to have to deal with reality. I'm not sure that any FEer is up to the task.

Neither Columbia College, Columbia University, Columbia International University, Columbia State University, Columbia Centro Universitario, or Columbia Community College have a trademark on the word "Columbia," nor can they.

Why can't they?

I am not a legal expert, but the general idea of trademarks is clear and internationally accepted. Trademarks specifically protect the first user from the "piggybacking" that Tom Bishop proposes. It is the decision of the holder of the rights to sue or not to sue those who might be trying to abuse the name.

If Tom Bishop puts "Zetetic" in the name, for example, I am sure nobody will mind. the "Zetetic University of Columbia" would be a good, laughable name that would not cause the wrath of the Columbia University.

But I can assure you, if piggybacking on the Columbia University using the name "University of Columbia" was that easy, someone would have done it long ago.