Governments and corporations have been complicit in an effective ‘privatization of language’.  Recent developments in IP legislation, particularly in the UK, have given corporations a carte blanche with regards to protecting their claim on associations with events they are sponsoring. The Olympics, for example, has required vastly more investment from the taxpayer than from any sponsor [i] [ii] and yet those very taxpayers have been prevented from using associations with the event to their advantage. The build-up to the games saw the international media full of stories of small businesses and others banned from using the logo or name of the games for their own advantage [iii] . Sponsors may have ploughed in millions but the taxpayers has invested billions, many of them will see precious little return on that investment and this is exacerbated by the official sponsors buying those terms. Effectively government has conspired with corporations to own chunks of language which morally, linguistically and financially can be said to belong to the public.  Nobody would challenge the right of sponsors to proudly promote their bought association with an event they are sponsoring and to use all of the means at their disposal to declare that association to the world, which they have done. However, there is a world of difference between the positive right to proclaim a particular association and the negative right to prevent anyone else from proclaiming theirs. Of course sponsorship should provide bragging rights and privileged access but that is a world away from buying the silence of others.  [i] London 2012 Olympic Sponsors List: Who Are They And What Have They Paid? Simon Rogers. The Guardian. 19 July 2012.  [ii] London Olympics Could Cost Taxpayer $17Bn. Fred Drier. Forbes Magazine. 10 March 2012.  [iii] Even Sausage Rings Are Put on The Chopping Block. Jere Longman. New York Times. 24 July 2012.