DNC Parks & Resorts at Yosemite officials quickly responded to the government's request that their claim for more than $10 million in damages tied to the loss of the Yosemite National Park concessions contract be dismissed, denying that their valuation of intellectual property was overvalued and accusing the National Park Service of "flip-flopping" when it comes to trademark issues.
On Thursday the concessionaire issued a press release "to set the record straight on a number of statements" laid out in the Justice Department's filing. Chief among them, DNC said, was that they were required to purchase the intellectual property rights from the previous concessionaire, Yosemite Park & Curry Co., back in 1993. The government maintained in its response to DNC's lawsuit filed last September that the 1993 purchase was specifically tied to YP&CC's stock, not any other assets.
While the Justice Department argued that DNC had "wildly inflated" the value of that intellectual property, the concessionaire said Thursday that it had "two independent appraisals of the intellectual property – which includes trademarked names, websites and customer databases – performed by reputable third-party experts. The valuation results of those separate appraisals are very similar. Again, it should be noted the intellectual property represented a portion of the property purchased by DNCY for $115 million in today’s dollars."
Another point of contention is whether the two parties shared the results of their respective appraisals of those intellectual property rights. The Justice Department claims that DNC provided summary valuations of the intellectual property assets "without any explanation or documentary support," while DNC claims that the Park Service failed to share its own appraisals and also refused binding arbitration to settle on a value.
"DNCY also repeatedly offered to allow NPS to meet independently with DNCY’s appraisers so NPS would understand the appraisal methodologies. NPS refused," the concessionaire said.
DNC also took exception with the Justice Department's description of its parent company's business model. The government stated that Delaware North seeks to bolster its bottom line by securing trademarks to iconic U.S.-owned properties, and pointed to an example from the Kennedy Space Center. But DNC said it was required under its contract with NASA to obtain a trademark for "Space Shuttle Atlantis" to maintain the intellectual property for NASA. If another concessionaire is hired, the trademarks "will be handed over to the next steward of the visitor complex at the end of the contract," wrote DNC.
Yosemite's new concessionaire, a subsidiary of Aramark Leisure, is to take over on March 1. While the Park Service has left open the option for Aramark to change the names of the buildings at Yosemite to which DNC claims trademark rights, DNC officials said they hope "NPS and the new concessionaire will not change the names of historic places or venues at Yosemite National Park."
"We purchased these trademarks when we commenced our work in 1993, as required by our contract with NPS, and our only interest is selling them on to the new concessionaire for fair value, a requirement NPS is obligated to enforce," the concessionaire said. "While this disagreement is ongoing we have even offered to license these trademarks, free of any charge, to NPS to avoid any name changes or impact on the park visitor experience."
Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places
Comments
This is nothing but another example of the egregious corporate greed that infects America.
The NPS needs some new contracts lawyers. Given the number of parks and number of concessionaires, the handling of intellectual property rights (a concept that goes back centurys and is far from "greed" of any kind) should have been determined decades ago and spelled out in detail in every contract.
But EC. When you already own something you don't have to "spell it out." The American people own Yosemite and its names--not the concessionaire. Under copyright law, as well, ownership eventually expires. 75 years after I am dead, the people will own my books. Imagine if the Wright Brothers still owned the airplane. God, would those planes be slow.
No, Lee is right. This is unabashed corporate greed--and too many $500 an hour lawyers trying to run the national parks and everything else in our country. Back to history for a moment. The railroads were never this greedy and respected the peoples' names. When they pulled out of the parks, they did so elegantly.
If I were Delaware North, I would be cutting my "losses," which are not "losses" in the first place. The more they keep this up, the less the American people will ever want Delaware North to hold the concession in a park again.
Finally, it's in the air. The American people are starting to sense how much they have given up on behalf of leadership that doesn't exist; an economy that doesn't exist; jobs that don't exist, and yes, a country that no longer exists. All we are told is this: Money matters more than anything else.
Yes, it matters, but we have also sold our soul to promises no one these days seems to keep. If Delaware North needs instruction on what a national park is--and why we have them--read a few of those books that are already free, starting with John Muir's. Then, when you are accorded the privilege--hear that, the privilege--of conducting business in a national park, know still that we the people own them, and yes, that we expect our elected and appointed leaders to remind you of that every day.
"When you already own something you don't have to "spell it out""
That is debatable but even if true, the question is who owns it? No, DNC doesn't own "Yosemite" but then they aren't claiming they do. They are claiming they own the customer lists, websites, investments they made and assets (tangible and intangible) that they purchased. Their appraisals and purchases were valued at over $100 mil. They were suing for $10 mil. That sounds very generous rather than greedy to me.
I am not a lawyer, but I do know that if you "argue" something you may inadvertently give "standing" to your adversary. At the moment a concessionaire loses his contract, the relationship does indeed become adversarial. You only want to pay me what?
At $500 an hour, Delaware North's lawyers aren't stupid. They pushed the Park Service into this position, and from what I see the Park Service balked. They didn't know the history (they rarely do) and so returned the argument. Well, just maybe you do own the names. . . Ah, we'll have to think about that some more. . .
Bureaucrats. If they had called any historian in the country, we could have laid out DNC's argument flat. Don't go there. The names are not intellectual property. They are taking you for a bunch or rubes.
You have to love it when the Indians weigh in, as they just did with that militia crew occupying the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Burns, Oregon. Hey, if any of these "public lands" are going "back" to anyone, they are coming back to us!
Ditto. If anyone wants to be paid for Yosemite's place names, I nominate their original owners. Otherwise, you don't own a thing, Delaware North. Now, go join the militia. Pees in a pod, I say.
If someone purchases assets, only they can decide to give them back to their "original" owners. But once again, this disagreement goes far beyond purchased assets. It also includes assets created by DNC.
I am not politically correct, but surely you don't mean to tell anyone that North America was "purchased" from its original owners. Even when the purchaser was "honest," the "sale" was ultimately forced.
But that's history--which remains my point. We cannot go back and change the past. How the Park Service ever allowed its concessionaires to think that they somehow "owned" the place names of the national parks is to prove, once again, that the agency doesn't know its history or the authority Congress intended it to have.
Years ago, Stephen T. Mather forced the consolidation of competing concessionaires in several of the major parks. It stuck. Why is it not sticking now?
$500 lawyers again, and people who don't know their history. Sure, you get to keep your mailing lists, proprietary website, etc., etc. But you don't get to change the names--or to "sell them back." The Justice Department has it right. The federal government created the value in the national parks by declaring them national parks.
The Supreme Court said as much in 1872. How did James M. Hutchings ever think he was entitled to Yosemite Valley just because he had filed a claim? The government had a right to reject his claim, and establish the park. He had no right to "force" a sale.
We see the same thing, in effect, in the abuse of our federal highways. The public pays for the highway--for the value--which the billboard companies then exploit. Without the highway, there would be no value--no way for outdoor advertisers to make a profit. The billboard companies then "force" us to look at their garbage, daring to call it "free speech." Free to them, perhaps, but costly to us--both in natural beauty and distracted drivers. Coercion is not free speech.
DNC hopes to coerce the government into giving up the public's names. Boy, would I like to argue that before the Supreme Court, but again, I am just a lowly historian.
Property law is complicated and as EC said goes back centuries. Proving either side may be complicated as well. But I feel, the main thing the Park Service should learn from this, is to make future concessionares contracts, not be able to accumulate naming rights within a National Park for Places and features that should be turned back to the park service at conclussion of contract. At least going forward.