Talk:Intellectual Reserve

This article was nominated for deletion on 27 March 2019. The result of the discussion was redirect.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Intellectual Reserve redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Latter Day Saint movement Mid‑importance

	Latter Day Saint movement portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Latter Day Saint movementWikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementTemplate:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementLatter Day Saint movement articles
Mid	This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mormon & Deseret trademarked?[edit]

Intellectual reserve tried to trademark the word "Mormon" in 2007, but seems to have failed to do so. See http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=nuggf6.2.5. This link is broken.

They tried to do the same with "Deseret" in 1997, and also seem to have failed - http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=nuggf6.3.20. This link is broken.

The Corporation of the First Presidency attempted to trademark the LDS Church around the same time, but it seems to have failed too - http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=nuggf6.4.13. This link is broken

Perhaps the Strangite Church may have prior legal claim to that name.

--Tobey 04:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be surprised, but at least they have trademark for TCoJCoL-dS, yes? Cool Hand Luke 07:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal[edit]

I believe that in the church's article there is a section entitled 'name & legal entities' of which this is one of many and is already mentioned. I feel that the very little content that is in this article should just simply be put in that section which I've included the link to here. Carter | Talk to me 11:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The push in the church's article has been to slice sections out into sub-articles, so this move would go against that effort. Perhaps a better proposal would be to expand the Intellectual Reserve article to include all legal entities controlled by the church, then rename the article something like "Legal entities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". --TrustTruth 21:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to that. Carter | Talk to me 06:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. That section is about LDS Church continuity, and this is a bit out-of the flow. This article could use expansion. I think Mormon#Trademark should be moved here, or at least referenced, because it helps explain the kinds of IP this holding company owns. Cool Hand Luke 06:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I'll be looking around to see what else can expand this article. I like the idea of a new "Legal entities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" article. Anyways, I'll be looking around. Carter | Talk to me 06:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, my gut instinct was to oppose a single article for all of them, but I think a merge might work. I did a news search for Deseret Management, and no one ever talks about it outside of a passing reference to it being the parent company of whatever company they're really writing about (Like Bonneville, or the Deseret Morning News). A news archive search for "intellectual reserve" and "LDS" shows that almost all refs to this non-profit are about the famous internet contributory copyright infringement case which shares its name. A 2002 Financial Times article merely says that Intellectual Reserve owns lds.org and mormon.org. There's not much substantive coverage, so merger might make sense.

Commentators have written about the holdings of the LDS Church, so that's a notable subject. We could have an outline showing the relationships of the subsidiaries. The ones that are independently notable (like Deseret Management's companies) would be linked with their own article, as they are now. Cool Hand Luke 07:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great idea! Carter | Talk to me 07:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care to wade through a large article on the church to check a reference to Intellectual Reserve, so I am also against a merger.Jkolak (talk) 04:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll on structure[edit]

This is a new subdiscussion. This is not a formal request for re-organization, but is a poll as to how the re-organization to go. Once we get some firm ideas hashed out, then we can have an official poll for the re-organization. The numbered items are proposals to vote on, and the options below are the proposals to vote on. I want this poll to be flexible, so feel free to add additional options below each of the numbered items and additional numbered items. However, I don't want there to become too fine of a gradiation within the options, so don't add more than eight. Also, don't change the order of the votes so that it will throw off what someone has already voted for. Rather than explain how to vote, just follow my format below; I'm timestamping my vote on each vote because it may become relevant if a new option comes up that I like better. — Val42 20:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I found that I had two "b" entries. I move the one that didn't seem to have an actual vote and I didn't want to leave a hole, so it is now "d". Also note the use of "..." to indicate "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" so that the substance of what we are voting on isn't lost in the length of the title. But if anyone wants to add other options, just add them as letters and the end, but don't make a duplicate letter like I did. — Val42 19:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to organize legal entities owned/controlled by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:
- a) Merge into this church's article
- b) Organize all into "Legal entities of ..."
- c) Organize into "Not for profit entities of ..." and "For profit entities of ..."
- d) Leave all articles separate
If not merged, should we create a category for "Legal entities of ..."?
- Yes
- No

Val42

1: b or c: Either one has about the same weight for me, but it will depend on how many ends up in each category in each case. — Val42 20:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2: Yes — Val42 20:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool Hand Luke

1: d (leave them separate), but b (merge to "Legal entities...") is also attractive.

2: Yes. Cool Hand Luke 20:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TrustTruth

1: b) Merge all into a new article entitled "Legal entities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"

2: Yes, with subcats for non-profits and for-profits --TrustTruth 23:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Anonymous101

1: b or d.82.33.114.90 (talk) 12:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2: Yes82.33.114.90 (talk) 12:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closing merge debate as "no merge"[edit]

Since the merge tag has been around since 2007, and no consensus to merge has emerged, I'm removing the tag. --Alvestrand (talk) 03:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonprofit Ownership?[edit]

The article states that (intellectual reserve), "is wholly owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." I do not believe this is possible, as everything I've been able to read about nonprofits is that they cannot be owned by any individual or organization (controlled, yes. Owned, no.). For one example of a site claiming that nonprofits cannot be owned, see: http://charitylawyerblog.com/2010/03/08/who-owns-a-nonprofit-corporation/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.160.95 (talk) 00:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]