PDA

View Full Version : Congratulations to Jasmin



av84fun
08-31-2008, 12:38 AM
Over The last 3 years of the World 14-1 Championship Jasmin has finished 5th (lost to Thorsten Hohmann, who won the event), 9th and this year beating Mika and Ortman...decisively to say the least and is guaranteed to medal in the event.

Truly a remarkable accomplishment.

Regards,
Jim

Rich R.
08-31-2008, 06:24 AM
Jasmin is an outstanding young player. She, and a few other ladies, continually show that women can compete with men on the pool table.
I look forward to the day when they hold a world championship and the field consists of at least 30% women.

Soflasnapper
09-01-2008, 11:36 AM
Isn't the US 9-Ball Open open to women entrants? When was the last time a woman entered the field? (Don't remember any for the 5 years or so I've been going.)

Does the WPA prevent its players from tournaments outside their circuit? If not, are there no women on that tour that are willing to try their luck with such a strong field?

Fran Crimi
09-01-2008, 12:27 PM
The tradition of banning women players from the U.S. Open started back when Don Mackey threatened to pull the men players from the event unless every person who played became a member of the PBT and turned over their media rights to them. Barry Behrman had no choice but to go along with the demand or he would have no men in his event.

Naturally, the WPBA would not allow it's members to turn over their media rights to Don Mackey and to put their future in his control.

I'm pretty sure that tradition continued for that event with the subsequent men's organizations.

Fran

Rich R.
09-01-2008, 01:20 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fran Crimi</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The tradition of banning women players from the U.S. Open started back when Don Mackey threatened to pull the men players from the event unless every person who played became a member of the PBT and turned over their media rights to them. Barry Behrman had no choice but to go along with the demand or he would have no men in his event.

Naturally, the WPBA would not allow it's members to turn over their media rights to Don Mackey and to put their future in his control.

I'm pretty sure that tradition continued for that event with the subsequent men's organizations.

Fran
</div></div>

Fran, is it more than a "tradition"?

When this topic has come up in the past, it was stated that Barry B. and the WPBA had some sort of agreement. Barry didn't allow women in his Open and the WPBA was allowed to use the title of "U.S. Open" for their own event. IIRC, this was posted by Barry's son, Brady.

I always just assumed this was true, until your current post, indicating that it was just a tradition. I know you have been involved in the WPBA for a long time. Do you have any knowledge of an agreement between the WPBA and Barry B.?

As a fan, I would love to see one large U.S. Open, open to both men and women. Many women have proven that women can compete equally on the pool table and I think it would be a real benefit to the game. I would definitely enjoy seeing the top women players in the Open, rather than the "dead money" players who currently donate their money for the right to play two matches.

Phonymosconi
09-01-2008, 01:39 PM
When Johnny Archer got beat by a woman not too long ago (either Karen or Allisaon) he said that was the last time he was going to take it easy on a woman player. I bet from now on all the pro men players will knuckle down and do their damnest to beat any woman who dares to challenge them.

av84fun
09-01-2008, 02:57 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rich R.</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fran Crimi</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The tradition of banning women players from the U.S. Open started back when Don Mackey threatened to pull the men players from the event unless every person who played became a member of the PBT and turned over their media rights to them. Barry Behrman had no choice but to go along with the demand or he would have no men in his event.

Naturally, the WPBA would not allow it's members to turn over their media rights to Don Mackey and to put their future in his control.

I'm pretty sure that tradition continued for that event with the subsequent men's organizations.

Fran
</div></div>

Fran, is it more than a "tradition"?

When this topic has come up in the past, it was stated that Barry B. and the WPBA had some sort of agreement. Barry didn't allow women in his Open and the WPBA was allowed to use the title of "U.S. Open" for their own event. IIRC, this was posted by Barry's son, Brady.

I always just assumed this was true, until your current post, indicating that it was just a tradition. I know you have been involved in the WPBA for a long time. Do you have any knowledge of an agreement between the WPBA and Barry B.?

As a fan, I would love to see one large U.S. Open, open to both men and women. Many women have proven that women can compete equally on the pool table and I think it would be a real benefit to the game. I would definitely enjoy seeing the top women players in the Open, rather than the "dead money" players who currently donate their money for the right to play two matches.

</div></div>

Fran will know...I'm just guessing. But in the meantime, I am rather sure that that there is no legal protection in the phrase "U.S. Open"

There are too many organizations using that phrase including the tennis and golf championships.

However, there might be trade mark or service mark protection in the phrase "U.S. Open Golf Championship" or "U.S. Open 9 Ball Championship."

In addition, there are Federal and state laws prohibiting "Unfair Trade Practices" one the the main tenets of which is a prohibition against causing confusion in the marketplace."

It would be under those statutes IMHO, that an action would be brought to stop some organization other than Barry B's to hold an event titled as the U.S. Open 9 Ball championship.

There has been a long history of disagreements between male and female player organizations over prize money splits etc. with the men...of course, wanting a disproportionate share of the prize monet and other benefits.

I say, "of course" because it is clear that a great many men significantly underrate the playing skill of the top female players.

Jasmin just made a statement on that point in straight pool...and Allison (who I sponsored for this years's DCC) finished t-17 against a world class field and along the way, beat Charlie Williams and Allen Hopkins 7-1.

On another forum...that I not-so-lovingly will refer to as the Cuckoo's Nest...had scores of posts to the effect that AF could not so much as finish in the money (which I think is around 50-75th place) at the DCC.

In any event, trying to hold another U.S. Open 9 Ball event wouldn't work but someone could probably form the "U.S. Open All-around Billiard Championship" with events in 9 Ball, 8 Ball, One Pocket and straight pool and I doubt that Barry B could do anything about it.

Regards,
Jim

Rich R.
09-01-2008, 07:53 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rich R.</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fran Crimi</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The tradition of banning women players from the U.S. Open started back when Don Mackey threatened to pull the men players from the event unless every person who played became a member of the PBT and turned over their media rights to them. Barry Behrman had no choice but to go along with the demand or he would have no men in his event.

Naturally, the WPBA would not allow it's members to turn over their media rights to Don Mackey and to put their future in his control.

I'm pretty sure that tradition continued for that event with the subsequent men's organizations.

Fran
</div></div>

Fran, is it more than a "tradition"?

When this topic has come up in the past, it was stated that Barry B. and the WPBA had some sort of agreement. Barry didn't allow women in his Open and the WPBA was allowed to use the title of "U.S. Open" for their own event. IIRC, this was posted by Barry's son, Brady.

I always just assumed this was true, until your current post, indicating that it was just a tradition. I know you have been involved in the WPBA for a long time. Do you have any knowledge of an agreement between the WPBA and Barry B.?

As a fan, I would love to see one large U.S. Open, open to both men and women. Many women have proven that women can compete equally on the pool table and I think it would be a real benefit to the game. I would definitely enjoy seeing the top women players in the Open, rather than the "dead money" players who currently donate their money for the right to play two matches.

</div></div>

Fran will know...I'm just guessing. But in the meantime, I am rather sure that that there is no legal protection in the phrase "U.S. Open"

<span style="color: #FF0000">I'm hoping that Fran responds. However, I'm not implying that there is some sort of legal protection of the name. Of course, the full name that we are discussing is the "U.S. Open 9 Ball Championship". </span>

There are too many organizations using that phrase including the tennis and golf championships.

However, there might be trade mark or service mark protection in the phrase "U.S. Open Golf Championship" or "U.S. Open 9 Ball Championship."

In addition, there are Federal and state laws prohibiting "Unfair Trade Practices" one the the main tenets of which is a prohibition against causing confusion in the marketplace."

It would be under those statutes IMHO, that an action would be brought to stop some organization other than Barry B's to hold an event titled as the U.S. Open 9 Ball championship.

<span style="color: #FF0000">All I know, to the best of my memory, which I will not guarantee, is that Brady Behrman indicated that there was some type of agreement between his father and the WPBA. I don't know if it was an actual written agreement or just a verbal agreement. </span>

There has been a long history of disagreements between male and female player organizations over prize money splits etc. with the men...of course, wanting a disproportionate share of the prize monet and other benefits.

I say, "of course" because it is clear that a great many men significantly underrate the playing skill of the top female players.

Jasmin just made a statement on that point in straight pool...and Allison (who I sponsored for this years's DCC) finished t-17 against a world class field and along the way, beat Charlie Williams and Allen Hopkins 7-1.

<span style="color: #FF0000">Jasmin definitely made a statement for all female players. There is no question of Allison's skill on the table. Karen Corr has also won several Joss Tour events, against a predominately male field. I definitely think it is time for all major tournaments to be open to men and women alike. </span>

On another forum...that I not-so-lovingly will refer to as the Cuckoo's Nest...had scores of posts to the effect that AF could not so much as finish in the money (which I think is around 50-75th place) at the DCC.

<span style="color: #FF0000">I can guess what forum you are referring to and the name "Cuckoo's Nest" certainly fits. Enough said about that. </span>

In any event, trying to hold another U.S. Open 9 Ball event wouldn't work but someone could probably form the "U.S. Open All-around Billiard Championship" with events in 9 Ball, 8 Ball, One Pocket and straight pool and I doubt that Barry B could do anything about it.

Regards,
Jim </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000"> I agree, Barry could only take action against someone trying to start another "U.S. Open 9 Ball Championship", not the others you mentioned. However, keep in mind, the WPBA does call their event the "U.S. Open" and it is a 9-ball event. Just check their schedule. I'm not sure they could use that name without Barry agreeing.

At this point, I don't know exactly what the situation is.
I know women are not welcome in the U.S. Open.
Brady Behrman indicated there was an agreement, as far as I can remember.
Hopefully, Fran can shed some light on this.

I will be at the U.S. Open next month. If I get the opportunity, I will ask Barry Behrman what the exact status of women in the Open is and if they will ever be allowed to play.


</span>

av84fun
09-02-2008, 12:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rich R.</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rich R.</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fran Crimi</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The tradition of banning women players from the U.S. Open started back when Don Mackey threatened to pull the men players from the event unless every person who played became a member of the PBT and turned over their media rights to them. Barry Behrman had no choice but to go along with the demand or he would have no men in his event.

Naturally, the WPBA would not allow it's members to turn over their media rights to Don Mackey and to put their future in his control.

I'm pretty sure that tradition continued for that event with the subsequent men's organizations.

Fran
</div></div>

Fran, is it more than a "tradition"?

When this topic has come up in the past, it was stated that Barry B. and the WPBA had some sort of agreement. Barry didn't allow women in his Open and the WPBA was allowed to use the title of "U.S. Open" for their own event. IIRC, this was posted by Barry's son, Brady.

I always just assumed this was true, until your current post, indicating that it was just a tradition. I know you have been involved in the WPBA for a long time. Do you have any knowledge of an agreement between the WPBA and Barry B.?

As a fan, I would love to see one large U.S. Open, open to both men and women. Many women have proven that women can compete equally on the pool table and I think it would be a real benefit to the game. I would definitely enjoy seeing the top women players in the Open, rather than the "dead money" players who currently donate their money for the right to play two matches.

</div></div>

Fran will know...I'm just guessing. But in the meantime, I am rather sure that that there is no legal protection in the phrase "U.S. Open"

<span style="color: #FF0000">I'm hoping that Fran responds. However, I'm not implying that there is some sort of legal protection of the name. Of course, the full name that we are discussing is the "U.S. Open 9 Ball Championship". </span>

There are too many organizations using that phrase including the tennis and golf championships.

However, there might be trade mark or service mark protection in the phrase "U.S. Open Golf Championship" or "U.S. Open 9 Ball Championship."

In addition, there are Federal and state laws prohibiting "Unfair Trade Practices" one the the main tenets of which is a prohibition against causing confusion in the marketplace."

It would be under those statutes IMHO, that an action would be brought to stop some organization other than Barry B's to hold an event titled as the U.S. Open 9 Ball championship.

<span style="color: #FF0000">All I know, to the best of my memory, which I will not guarantee, is that Brady Behrman indicated that there was some type of agreement between his father and the WPBA. I don't know if it was an actual written agreement or just a verbal agreement. </span>

There has been a long history of disagreements between male and female player organizations over prize money splits etc. with the men...of course, wanting a disproportionate share of the prize monet and other benefits.

I say, "of course" because it is clear that a great many men significantly underrate the playing skill of the top female players.

Jasmin just made a statement on that point in straight pool...and Allison (who I sponsored for this years's DCC) finished t-17 against a world class field and along the way, beat Charlie Williams and Allen Hopkins 7-1.

<span style="color: #FF0000">Jasmin definitely made a statement for all female players. There is no question of Allison's skill on the table. Karen Corr has also won several Joss Tour events, against a predominately male field. I definitely think it is time for all major tournaments to be open to men and women alike. </span>

On another forum...that I not-so-lovingly will refer to as the Cuckoo's Nest...had scores of posts to the effect that AF could not so much as finish in the money (which I think is around 50-75th place) at the DCC.

<span style="color: #FF0000">I can guess what forum you are referring to and the name "Cuckoo's Nest" certainly fits. Enough said about that. </span>

In any event, trying to hold another U.S. Open 9 Ball event wouldn't work but someone could probably form the "U.S. Open All-around Billiard Championship" with events in 9 Ball, 8 Ball, One Pocket and straight pool and I doubt that Barry B could do anything about it.

Regards,
Jim </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000"> I agree, Barry could only take action against someone trying to start another "U.S. Open 9 Ball Championship", not the others you mentioned. However, keep in mind, the WPBA does call their event the "U.S. Open" and it is a 9-ball event. Just check their schedule. I'm not sure they could use that name without Barry agreeing.

At this point, I don't know exactly what the situation is.
I know women are not welcome in the U.S. Open.
Brady Behrman indicated there was an agreement, as far as I can remember.
Hopefully, Fran can shed some light on this.

I will be at the U.S. Open next month. If I get the opportunity, I will ask Barry Behrman what the exact status of women in the Open is and if they will ever be allowed to play.


</span> </div></div>

Actually, they call it "2008 WPBA US Open 9 Ball Championships"

http://www.wpba.com/pdfs/2008-USOPENtournamentChart.pdf

Since the event is for women only, there is no possibility of confusing the public and therefore, no Unfair Trade Practices.

Regards,
Jim

Rich R.
09-02-2008, 07:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Actually, they call it "2008 WPBA US Open 9 Ball Championships"

http://www.wpba.com/pdfs/2008-USOPENtournamentChart.pdf

Since the event is for women only, there is no possibility of confusing the public and therefore, no Unfair Trade Practices.

Regards,
Jim </div></div>

Actually, on the WPBA schedule, it is referred to only as the "U.S. Open".
http://www.wpba.com/cms/?pid=1000088

Although this event is only for women, there could be some confusion if someone only refers to the "U.S. Open". In fact, I have heard people refer to the "U.S. Open" and they meant the WPBA event, when the person they were talking too thought they were referring to the other event.

Of course, the real issue here is not the name. The issue is, is there an agreement between Barry B. and the WPBA about women playing in his event and the use of the name?

In reality, neither of these two events is really "open".

av84fun
09-02-2008, 11:33 AM
There is no confusion that would lead to transactions being based on the confusion and therefore, no unfair trade practice.

Berhman does not own or control the phrase "U.S. Open."

And what is it about his event that leads you to think it is not truly an open event?

And the WPBA U.S. Open seems as "open" as any major sports Open like tennis ang golf where it is NOT restricted to tour members exclusively but rather non-tour card holding players can qualify.

That is true for the WPBA U.S. Open where there is a whole series of qualifiers around the country such as....

California State Women's 9 Ball Championships

Dates:
***Event Completed: Congratulations to Michelle Rakin - Title Winner & Qualifier!****

Qualifier For:
WPBA US OPen 2008

Rich R.
09-02-2008, 12:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There is no confusion that would lead to transactions being based on the confusion and therefore, no unfair trade practice.
<span style="color: #FF0000">You were the one who brought up the term "unfair trade practice". That is a legal term and I am not a lawyer. I can not comment on that issue. </span>

Berhman does not own or control the phrase "U.S. Open."
<span style="color: #FF0000">I never said that Barry owns or controls the phrase "U.S. Open". He may or may not have a copy right on the phrase "U.S. Open 9 Ball Championship". Again, I don't know for sure. However, it is possible. </span>

And what is it about his event that leads you to think it is not truly an open event?
<span style="color: #FF0000">If the event you are referring to is Barry's U.S. Open, to the best of my knowledge based on everything I have read, women are not allowed to play. Therefore, it is not a truly open event. </span>

And the WPBA U.S. Open seems as "open" as any major sports Open like tennis ang golf where it is NOT restricted to tour members exclusively but rather non-tour card holding players can qualify.

That is true for the WPBA U.S. Open where there is a whole series of qualifiers around the country such as....

California State Women's 9 Ball Championships

<span style="color: #FF0000">To the best of my knowledge, and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, to win a qualifier to any WPBA event, including their U.S. Open, you have to be a WPBA member. Most players, competing in regional tours for qualifier spots, are WPBA members. A non-member would not be awarded the qualifier. It is not really an open event.
BTW, the WPBA U.S. Open is also not open to men. Therefore, it is also not a truly open event on that basis too.
To be honest about it, Barry's event is closer to being truly open than most other events, as anyone, except a female, can pay their entry and play.
And, before you jump in again, I also realize that the "Open" events for golf and tennis are also not truly open events.
For an event to be truly "open" it means anyone can pay their entry and play, regardless of sex, tour affiliations or anything else. </span>

Dates:
***Event Completed: Congratulations to Michelle Rakin - Title Winner & Qualifier!****

Qualifier For:
WPBA US OPen 2008

</div></div>
<span style="color: #FF0000">Let me add my congratulations to Michelle. I have read a lot of good things about her. </span>

av84fun
09-02-2008, 03:45 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rich R.</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There is no confusion that would lead to transactions being based on the confusion and therefore, no unfair trade practice.
<span style="color: #FF0000">You were the one who brought up the term "unfair trade practice". That is a legal term and I am not a lawyer. I can not comment on that issue. </span>

<span style="color: #000099">Yes, I do recall that I brought that up. (-: I was just trying to shed some light on the matter.
</span>

Berhman does not own or control the phrase "U.S. Open."
<span style="color: #FF0000">I never said that Barry owns or controls the phrase "U.S. Open". He may or may not have a copy right on the phrase "U.S. Open 9 Ball Championship". Again, I don't know for sure. However, it is possible. </span>

<span style="color: #000099">You implied that he controls it when you wrote "Barry didn't allow women in his Open and the WPBA was allowed to use the title of "U.S. Open" for their own event.</span>

And what is it about his event that leads you to think it is not truly an open event?
<span style="color: #FF0000">If the event you are referring to is Barry's U.S. Open, to the best of my knowledge based on everything I have read, women are not allowed to play. Therefore, it is not a truly open event. </span>

<span style="color: #000099">Agreed.</span>

And the WPBA U.S. Open seems as "open" as any major sports Open like tennis ang golf where it is NOT restricted to tour members exclusively but rather non-tour card holding players can qualify.

That is true for the WPBA U.S. Open where there is a whole series of qualifiers around the country such as....

California State Women's 9 Ball Championships

<span style="color: #FF0000">To the best of my knowledge, and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, to win a qualifier to any WPBA event, including their U.S. Open, you have to be a WPBA member. Most players, competing in regional tours for qualifier spots, are WPBA members. A non-member would not be awarded the qualifier. It is not really an open event.
BTW, the WPBA U.S. Open is also not open to men. Therefore, it is also not a truly open event on that basis too.
To be honest about it, Barry's event is closer to being truly open than most other events, as anyone, except a female, can pay their entry and play.
And, before you jump in again, I also realize that the "Open" events for golf and tennis are also not truly open events.
For an event to be truly "open" it means anyone can pay their entry and play, regardless of sex, tour affiliations or anything else. </span>

<span style="color: #000099">Sorry if you have a problem with my "jumping in." I was just attempting to carry on a discussion on what I think is an interesting topic.

The events you and I refer to such as the golf and tennis opens may not be "truly" open events but because of their stature, I think it is clear that they are the "standard" for what "open events" are.

To be "truly" open, I guess they would have to accept 6 year olds too! (-:

As for the requirement for WPBA membership to play in a qualifier, I don't know one way or the other. Certainly, those who play in the qualifiers are not holders of Tour Cards on the WPBA.

In addition, I'll bet ya a nickle that in order to play in the U.S. Open golf or tennis qualifiers, you would have to become a USGA or USTA member. (-: </span>

Dates:
***Event Completed: Congratulations to Michelle Rakin - Title Winner & Qualifier!****

Qualifier For:
WPBA US OPen 2008

</div></div>
<span style="color: #FF0000">Let me add my congratulations to Michelle. I have read a lot of good things about her. </span>
</div></div>

Fran Crimi
09-02-2008, 05:02 PM
There used to be both men's and women's divisions in Barry's tournament. I used to play in the event myself. It is a fact that when Don Mackey came into the picture, he suddenly insisted that if Barry wanted a women's division, then the women would have to join the PBT and turn over their media rights to the PBT or he would pull his players from the event.

I truly believe that there would have continued to be a women's division in Barry's event if the men hadn't gotten so greedy and just left the WPBA to manage their division with Barry just as they had done all the previous years.

Years later, the UPA was also requiring that anyone playing in their sanctioned events, which included the U.S. Open, must join the UPA as well. So that's what I meant by the tradition continuing. They held Barry hostage. He literally was forced to choose between the men and the women.

After that, the WPBA decided to have their own U.S. Open and Barry certainly understood and had no problem with that since he couldn't invite them to his event.

Fran

Rich R.
09-02-2008, 09:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rich R.</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There is no confusion that would lead to transactions being based on the confusion and therefore, no unfair trade practice.
<span style="color: #FF0000">You were the one who brought up the term "unfair trade practice". That is a legal term and I am not a lawyer. I can not comment on that issue. </span>

<span style="color: #000099">Yes, I do recall that I brought that up. (-: I was just trying to shed some light on the matter.
</span>

Berhman does not own or control the phrase "U.S. Open."
<span style="color: #FF0000">I never said that Barry owns or controls the phrase "U.S. Open". He may or may not have a copy right on the phrase "U.S. Open 9 Ball Championship". Again, I don't know for sure. However, it is possible. </span>

<span style="color: #000099">You implied that he controls it when you wrote "Barry didn't allow women in his Open and the WPBA was allowed to use the title of "U.S. Open" for their own event.</span>
<span style="color: #33CC00">Barry controls who may enter his tournament. At this time, women are not allowed entry. From what I have previously read, Barry allowed the WPBA to use the term "U.S. Open". Whether that was a legal act or just a jesture, I have no idea. I only know what I have read. </span>

And what is it about his event that leads you to think it is not truly an open event?
<span style="color: #FF0000">If the event you are referring to is Barry's U.S. Open, to the best of my knowledge based on everything I have read, women are not allowed to play. Therefore, it is not a truly open event. </span>

<span style="color: #000099">Agreed.</span>

And the WPBA U.S. Open seems as "open" as any major sports Open like tennis ang golf where it is NOT restricted to tour members exclusively but rather non-tour card holding players can qualify.

That is true for the WPBA U.S. Open where there is a whole series of qualifiers around the country such as....

California State Women's 9 Ball Championships

<span style="color: #FF0000">To the best of my knowledge, and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, to win a qualifier to any WPBA event, including their U.S. Open, you have to be a WPBA member. Most players, competing in regional tours for qualifier spots, are WPBA members. A non-member would not be awarded the qualifier. It is not really an open event.
BTW, the WPBA U.S. Open is also not open to men. Therefore, it is also not a truly open event on that basis too.
To be honest about it, Barry's event is closer to being truly open than most other events, as anyone, except a female, can pay their entry and play.
And, before you jump in again, I also realize that the "Open" events for golf and tennis are also not truly open events.
For an event to be truly "open" it means anyone can pay their entry and play, regardless of sex, tour affiliations or anything else. </span>

<span style="color: #000099">Sorry if you have a problem with my "jumping in." I was just attempting to carry on a discussion on what I think is an interesting topic.
<span style="color: #33CC00">I have no problem with you "jumping in". I was just letting you know ahead of time that I was aware that the other so called "Open" events were not truly open. </span>

The events you and I refer to such as the golf and tennis opens may not be "truly" open events but because of their stature, I think it is clear that they are the "standard" for what "open events" are.
<span style="color: #33CC00">Being the "standard for what is open" and being "truly open" is definitely two different things. My only point was that these events are not "truly open". </span>

To be "truly" open, I guess they would have to accept 6 year olds too! (-:
<span style="color: #33CC00">In the U.S. Open 9 Ball Championship, a 6 year old, with the entry fee, may be allowed to play, if the 6 year old was a male. I know several teenagers who have played in the Open for several years. Landon Shuffet (sp) is the youngest player to ever win a round at the Open. I'm not certain, but I don't think he was in his teens at the time. </span>

As for the requirement for WPBA membership to play in a qualifier, I don't know one way or the other. Certainly, those who play in the qualifiers are not holders of Tour Cards on the WPBA.
<span style="color: #33CC00">I believe a player can play in a qualifier tournament without being a WPBA member. They would probably have to be a member of that particular regional tour. However, if they would win the tournament, they will not be awarded the qualifier. They would only win whatever cash prize is involved.

I'm not really sure what the difference is between being a WPBA member and holding a "Tour Card".
Per the WPBA web site, they mention four types of player memberships, but they do not mention a "Tour Card".
http://www.wpba.com/cms/?pid=1000619</span>

In addition, I'll bet ya a nickle that in order to play in the U.S. Open golf or tennis qualifiers, you would have to become a USGA or USTA member. (-: </span>
<span style="color: #33CC00">I agree. I repeat, they are not truly open events. </span>

Dates:
***Event Completed: Congratulations to Michelle Rakin - Title Winner & Qualifier!****

Qualifier For:
WPBA US OPen 2008

</div></div>
<span style="color: #FF0000">Let me add my congratulations to Michelle. I have read a lot of good things about her. </span>
</div></div> </div></div>

Rich R.
09-02-2008, 10:03 PM
Rather than rely on my feeble memory, I attempted to locate Brady Behrman's post concerning women playing in the Open. Although I seem to remember a post with more detail, this is the only post I could find, during a few minutes of searching.

Posted on 4/11/05

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Brady_Behrman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My father signed off the rights for the women to have THEIR own U.S.Open 9-Ball Championships. The women used to play here with the men but in seperate tournament.

Thanks,
Brady </div></div>

av84fun
09-02-2008, 11:26 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rich R.</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Rather than rely on my feeble memory, I attempted to locate Brady Behrman's post concerning women playing in the Open. Although I seem to remember a post with more detail, this is the only post I could find, during a few minutes of searching.

Posted on 4/11/05

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Brady_Behrman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My father signed off the rights for the women to have THEIR own U.S.Open 9-Ball Championships. The women used to play here with the men but in seperate tournament.

Thanks,
Brady </div></div> </div></div>

Rich, Mr. Behrman could have signed anything he felt like signing but he clearly has no rights to "U.S. Open" and neither does anyone else.

The WPBA has a trademark in "WPBA" and therefore, no one else could hold a "WPBA U.S. Open 9 Ball Championship" which is the "official" name of the event even though it and the other events are often shortened to simply U.S. Open.

In addition, I suspect that no one else could use "Mens" or "Women's U.S. Open 9 Ball Championship" due to the unfair trade practices laws since clearly, direct and utter confusion would result to the detriment of the existing events.

Although they are nice to have, whether there is a trademark or servicemark...or not...the law frowns on decpetion in the marketplace. So, the WPBA would be ill-advised to hold its Open at the same time as the Behrman event, for example.

So, IMHO, what happened is that the WPBA and Behrman decided to go their own spearate ways for the reasons Fran cited and I don't believe there was any basis for Behrman to grant permission or "sign off" on anything...although he certainly may have done so anyway!


Regards,
Jim

Rich R.
09-03-2008, 06:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rich R.</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Rather than rely on my feeble memory, I attempted to locate Brady Behrman's post concerning women playing in the Open. Although I seem to remember a post with more detail, this is the only post I could find, during a few minutes of searching.

Posted on 4/11/05

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Brady_Behrman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My father signed off the rights for the women to have THEIR own U.S.Open 9-Ball Championships. The women used to play here with the men but in seperate tournament.

Thanks,
Brady </div></div> </div></div>

Rich, Mr. Behrman could have signed anything he felt like signing but he clearly has no rights to "U.S. Open" and neither does anyone else.

The WPBA has a trademark in "WPBA" and therefore, no one else could hold a "WPBA U.S. Open 9 Ball Championship" which is the "official" name of the event even though it and the other events are often shortened to simply U.S. Open.

In addition, I suspect that no one else could use "Mens" or "Women's U.S. Open 9 Ball Championship" due to the unfair trade practices laws since clearly, direct and utter confusion would result to the detriment of the existing events.

Although they are nice to have, whether there is a trademark or servicemark...or not...the law frowns on decpetion in the marketplace. So, the WPBA would be ill-advised to hold its Open at the same time as the Behrman event, for example.

So, IMHO, what happened is that the WPBA and Behrman decided to go their own spearate ways for the reasons Fran cited and I don't believe there was any basis for Behrman to grant permission or "sign off" on anything...although he certainly may have done so anyway!


Regards,
Jim </div></div>

Jim, I'm not a lawyer and I don't pretend to be. I accept your explanation of the fair trade practices issue. However, without further information, how can you be so certain that Barry doesn't have a copy right on the title "U.S. Open 9 Ball Championship", which would protect its use without his permission?
I admit I do not know if he has a copy right or not, but I think it is a possibility and it should not be dismissed.

av84fun
09-03-2008, 09:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rich R.</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rich R.</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Rather than rely on my feeble memory, I attempted to locate Brady Behrman's post concerning women playing in the Open. Although I seem to remember a post with more detail, this is the only post I could find, during a few minutes of searching.

Posted on 4/11/05

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Brady_Behrman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My father signed off the rights for the women to have THEIR own U.S.Open 9-Ball Championships. The women used to play here with the men but in seperate tournament.

Thanks,
Brady </div></div> </div></div>

Rich, Mr. Behrman could have signed anything he felt like signing but he clearly has no rights to "U.S. Open" and neither does anyone else.

The WPBA has a trademark in "WPBA" and therefore, no one else could hold a "WPBA U.S. Open 9 Ball Championship" which is the "official" name of the event even though it and the other events are often shortened to simply U.S. Open.

In addition, I suspect that no one else could use "Mens" or "Women's U.S. Open 9 Ball Championship" due to the unfair trade practices laws since clearly, direct and utter confusion would result to the detriment of the existing events.

Although they are nice to have, whether there is a trademark or servicemark...or not...the law frowns on decpetion in the marketplace. So, the WPBA would be ill-advised to hold its Open at the same time as the Behrman event, for example.

So, IMHO, what happened is that the WPBA and Behrman decided to go their own spearate ways for the reasons Fran cited and I don't believe there was any basis for Behrman to grant permission or "sign off" on anything...although he certainly may have done so anyway!


Regards,
Jim </div></div>

Jim, I'm not a lawyer and I don't pretend to be. I accept your explanation of the fair trade practices issue. However, without further information, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>how can you be so certain that Barry doesn't have a copy right on the title "U.S. Open 9 Ball Championship",</span> which would protect its use without his permission?
I admit I do not know if he has a copy right or not, but I think it is a possibility and it should not be dismissed.
</div></div>

I am in the music publishing business and can tell you for a fact that titles are not subject to <u>copyright</u> protection.

He could and should have a <u>trademark</u> or <u>servicemark</u> on "U.S. Open 9 Ball Championship" but that is not the same thing as the "WPBA U.S. Open 9 Ball Championship."

Regards,
Jim

Rich R.
09-03-2008, 09:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am in the music publishing business and can tell you for a fact that titles are not subject to <u>copyright</u> protection.

He could and should have a <u>trademark</u> or <u>servicemark</u> on "U.S. Open 9 Ball Championship" but that is not the same thing as the "WPBA U.S. Open 9 Ball Championship."

Regards,
Jim </div></div>
I am always willing learn. Since you have knowledge in this area, could you please explain the differenc between a "trademark" and a "servicemark". I would also be interested in knowing how a copyright is different and why a title can not be copyrighted.

av84fun
09-03-2008, 01:50 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rich R.</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am in the music publishing business and can tell you for a fact that titles are not subject to <u>copyright</u> protection.

He could and should have a <u>trademark</u> or <u>servicemark</u> on "U.S. Open 9 Ball Championship" but that is not the same thing as the "WPBA U.S. Open 9 Ball Championship."

Regards,
Jim </div></div>



I am always willing learn. Since you have knowledge in this area, could you please explain the differenc between a "trademark" and a "servicemark". I would also be interested in knowing how a copyright is different and why a title can not be copyrighted.
</div></div>

Sure. Typically a "trademark" protects a physical product. The name Audi and the interlocking rings that symbolize that product would be protected by trademark.

As the name implies, a servicemark protects a service, not a physical product...although there are plenty of companies that offer both products and services....such as the USGA in golf, so the lines get crossed.

A copyright protects words, music, sounds and various forms of artistic creations such as drawings, paintings, sculpture and even dance movements.

A title, like "The French Connection" is not subject to copyright due to the provisions of the federal copyright law which is Title 17, U.S. Code.

Mere ideas also are not subject to copyright. For example, you could not protect the idea about a novel dealing with World War III.

In addition, copyrights are time-limited (like patents) and exist for the life of the author +70 years. I don't know for a fact but I presume that trademarks and servicemarks last in perpetuity.

However, just because you cannot obtain a copyright in a title like The French Connection, you might also be sued under the Unfair Trade Practices laws if you produced a new film using that title.

Winning such a suit would not be a slam dunk especially if the new film dealt with a French Chef but you would not want to publish a book entitled Gone With the Wind without a license from the owners of the copyright. (assuming the copyright has not expired which is close to happening at this time).

Conversely, you can do a film or write a book entitled Titanic.

The difference being the unique nature of Gone With the Wind and the lack of uniqueness re: things having to do with the Titanic...an actual ship and actual event.


Regards,
Jim

Rich R.
09-03-2008, 07:12 PM
Thanks for the explanation Jim.