Re: Interesting article about conlangs and the law

Tim Smith:
> I thought that there _was_ a case in which a US federal court decided
> that you can't copyright a language (con- or nat-).  IIRC, this was in
> the context of the Loglan vs. Lojban split, but I don't remember the
> details.  Can anyone either confirm or deny this?
IIRC, the Loglan Institute were advised that they had no case under copyright, but
that they might be able to defend 'Loglan' as a trademark. But the term was
ruled (by the courts) to be generic (exactly what generic category, I don't
know, but probably any language satisfying the criteria laid down in the 1960
Scientific American article).

The webpage Tal adverts to says "Loglan and Quenya have been to court and fought
over in the US". I can't find any info on the Quenya case. Does anybody know
what is referred to here.

--And.