Hi Oaktree,
My apologizes for not using the term with"kote" which confused modern Practitioners.
Hmm, you may have mis-understood me a little bit there.... Depending on the system itself, Omote Gyaku is correct for an outside wrist-reverse action, although the word "Kote" would be needed for your translation to have been closer to correct. And Omote Gyaku is more a concept that doesn't necessarily need to be applied to the wrist. But we're getting a little technical there.
So while Omote Gyaku can refer to what you translated it as, it doesn't translate the way you said, and as a concept it implies and refers to a lot more than you were talking about. And exactly what it refers to will change depending on the Ryu in question.
It is a generic name and why since you corrected me are you not refering it as Omote"kote"gyaku is because you knew what I was refering to when I typed "Omote gyaku" in the first place? If we are using generic words in Japanese
how can we say that someone owns this? Lets use generic words in English:
Body drop,foot sweep,wrist lock can we really say that someone owns these?
First off, I continued to use the term for a few reasons. First, I was following the terminology first applied by yourself (which was not necessarily incorrect) for ease of reading and expediancy. Second, some schools will use the term Omote Gyaku, with others using Omote Kote Gyaku, others use Omote Gaeshi or Kote Gaeshi, and others using very different terms again. For example, a variant is found in some branches of Asayama Ichiden Ryu which is refered to as Ete Nage (Monkey Hand Throw).
But really, what is your point here? You seem to be switching back and forth between an argument over ownership of the terms and an argument over ownership of the actions (although, it must be said you are consistent... you don't seem to allow anyone to have ownership over either!)? Are you arguing about the terms or the techniques here? Tell you what, I'll deal with both, okay?
Terminology is specific to the system, although not necessarily exclusive in all examples. Obviously, exclusive terminology should be covered. When it comes to the more "general" terms, if the distinction is made applying it to the particular system, then the same thing applies. For example, Gyokko Ryu Omote Gyaku can only be found in Gyokko Ryu (and for the record, it is performed differently from Koto Ryu, Kukishinden Ryu, Takagi Ryu, and so on). However, copyrighting the term "Omote Gyaku" isn't the issue here. And if you're arguing about "who gets to use the name?", you have missed the point of intellectual property as applied here.
In terms of techniques, well, again that's kinda beside the point. Especially when you take a single action, isolated apart from the rest of the system, and use it as an example. In that regard, it is the same as trying to copyright walking, as Bob said. But we are again not talking about copyrighting such things, we are talking about protecting and recognising that which makes each system unique.
If you want to put something fancy like"Dragon crushes tiger" and it is a wrist lock and you copy righted it and someone else uses it and uses the same name then yes that is violation of Intellectual property.
Again, you're looking too small here. The name given to any action does not make it unique intellectual property, nor does a specific action automatically become intellectual property. Not even the combination of them, really. What makes it intellectual property is the application of a unique non-physical ideology or approach. The name can be copyrighted, but that is a completely different issue (and can be proven rather easily... "He used my name." "Do you have a copyright on the name?", "Yes, here it is").
Using a wrist lock same as "Dragon crushes tiger" but calling it "armbar" most likely will not be Intellectual property violation depending on the circumstances.
No, but can be as well. But again, you're discussing copyrighting a combination of name (terminolgy) and technique (action, in this case a wrist lock). And in that you are missing what intellectual property is, what a unique philosophy expressed through the teachings of the art itself.
Look at Kimura lock,chickenwing,reverse keylock who owns this? It is used by everyone. Who owns the Jab? Who owns the double leg take down?
Whoever teaches or uses it does. But the particular approach of such actions, the way they are drilled and taught, the uses of these actions, the applications of them and so on, are owned by those who developed them (or were taught them, in the case of members of a Ryu or martial art class). The jab is not intellectual property, but ways of drilling it, combinations and applications etc are. If you stop looking at techniques, are start thinking of coaching methods and approaches to combat as the intellectual property issue, you may start to look at things a little differently.
Throw a Japanese name on it or a Chinese name on it. It is the same thing only with a Japanese or Chinese name.
Again, not the point.
The reason the Koryu members in the example I spoke of earlier were upset was not that "no one can use this thrust to the throat!", it was because their philosophical approach, their particular strategies as pertaining to combat effectiveness, their intellectual property really, had been co-opted by people with no claim to it whatsoever. That was a perfect example of theft of intellectual property, and had nothing to do with the terms used (although that was evidence of the source of the theft), or the physical actions (although again that was the method used to steal the property itself).
Ok pal best of luck to you.
