Slashdot Mirror

This schmuck also has a BS patent on a "modular computer user interface system" which appears to be nothing more than a numeric keypad that attaches to the computer. There's also portable telephone with simplified operation and Kid Phone You ought to read the MIT mailing list post too. In there he claims that this little patch increases computer speed to. This is absolute "As seen on TV" bullshit fraud. I'm amazed that the editors posted such blatant crap, and even more amazed they left it up without even a comment.

Searched TARR webserver with 2 results for VIIV. They both say the same, heres one result: Serial Number: 78534023

Intergraph's patents are numbers 4,899,275, 4,933,835 and 5,091,846.

Just don't ask me what any of that means...

Intergraph's patents are numbers 4,899,275, 4,933,835 and 5,091,846.

Just don't ask me what any of that means...

Intergraph's patents are numbers 4,899,275, 4,933,835 and 5,091,846.

Just don't ask me what any of that means...

1. A method for tracing a traffic event utilizing a firewall, comprising:

(a) executing a firewall on a local computer;

(b) monitoring traffic events between the local computer and a remote computer over a network utilizing the firewall;

(c) displaying the traffic events utilizing the firewall;

(d) tracing at least one of the traffic events utilizing the firewall; and

(e) displaying a world map with an illustration of the trace thereon utilizing the firewall.

And, of course, not one citation to a piece of prior art other than old patents.

1. A method for tracing a traffic event utilizing a firewall, comprising:

(a) executing a firewall on a local computer;

(b) monitoring traffic events between the local computer and a remote computer over a network utilizing the firewall;

(c) displaying the traffic events utilizing the firewall;

(d) tracing at least one of the traffic events utilizing the firewall; and

(e) displaying a world map with an illustration of the trace thereon utilizing the firewall.

And, of course, not one citation to a piece of prior art other than old patents.

Another example is the signature based dynamic NIDS patent that Symantec acquired through an acquisition. This is the exact same technology that is used by all of the network IDS systems today, with minor variations. It is reasonably obvious - separation of signatures into a data file instead of embedding them into the code. The generic concept of data-driven processing itself will probably provide prior art.

As more and more companies seek to cash in on the bonanza driven by increasing security paranoia, this trend is unlikely to wane in the near future.

Not as far as I know - you could be thinking about the IsNot patent though.

I was about to say "you can always use eMule or something similar (heck, even eMail) to send the writing between users" but then I saw SubEthaEdit's site.

At the risk of being sued, I must say, That's hot®.

Oh, I don't know. I heard a commentator on BBC World News here in London say this morning that the British actually have the highest number of patents taken out every year, of all countries and nationalities.

Of course, he didn't back it up with the references or citations to prove it, but I found it interesting.

He didn't back it up with any references because its not true. The U.S. still has the highest number of patents issued each year. Here are the numbers from the USPTO for 2003:

United States: 98598
United Kingdom: 4031
World: 187053

So the U.S. filed more than half of the worlds patents in 2003. The British total doesn't even come close.

References: USPTO: Patent Counts by Country/State and Year, All Patents, All Types ... (From Jan 1, 1977 - Dec 31, 2003)

I dug up these three patents that Immersion Corp apparently holds: 6,366,273 6,271,833 6,184,868.

I think that something this simple really shouldn't be given a patent. But since it has, I think I'll patent "audio notification of consumable liquid boiling point" and charge all tea kettle manufacturers exorbitant licensing fees :P

PS: This is not a seriously researched opinion, IANAL, etc.

I dug up these three patents that Immersion Corp apparently holds: 6,366,273 6,271,833 6,184,868.

I think that something this simple really shouldn't be given a patent. But since it has, I think I'll patent "audio notification of consumable liquid boiling point" and charge all tea kettle manufacturers exorbitant licensing fees :P

PS: This is not a seriously researched opinion, IANAL, etc.

I dug up these three patents that Immersion Corp apparently holds: 6,366,273 6,271,833 6,184,868.

I think that something this simple really shouldn't be given a patent. But since it has, I think I'll patent "audio notification of consumable liquid boiling point" and charge all tea kettle manufacturers exorbitant licensing fees :P

PS: This is not a seriously researched opinion, IANAL, etc.

Err, nope. What was described as "piles" in one rumor was actually Exposé. The Apple developed interface concept called "Piles" is actually something different. And the "rumors about a mouse with a wheel on it" are based on an Apple patent named "Mouse having a rotary dial" that describes a "user operated input device includes a housing and a rotary dial positioned relative to an external surface of the housing. The rotary dial provides a control function."

404 Patent doesn't exist.

Do you mean 2750221 (Luggage rack for cars) - pretty stupid.
Or is it 2775021 (Burial Casket - from 1956) - also pretty silly.

Guess you can throw up any random patent number, and the patent will seem rather obvious. ;)

404 Patent doesn't exist.

Do you mean 2750221 (Luggage rack for cars) - pretty stupid.
Or is it 2775021 (Burial Casket - from 1956) - also pretty silly.

Guess you can throw up any random patent number, and the patent will seem rather obvious. ;)

[ Add This Patent to your Cart ]

Customers who bought this patent also purchased Dynamic interoperability contract for web services

[ Add This Patent to your Cart ]

Customers who bought this patent also purchased Dynamic interoperability contract for web services

Pagerank isn't secret, its patented.

Your talking about the user gets to use it (if they pay for it). That's not a benefit in the context of progress of knowledge. The same thing applies with a patent. The only benefit you give that doesn't apply to patents is the cost savings (you don't have to pay for a patent and can pass the savings to the consumer). This is true, but is an implementation of patent problem. That they are expensive to get is not an argument that they are unnecessary or don't promote progress. It is an argument that they should be cheaper, which I'd agree to (along with a whole host of other reforms).

But the point is still true: trade secrets keep the knowledge of how something works from the public and therefore they can't benefit from the knowledge.

"... find someone else who will invent the same thing or something similar, or already has done so."
... "Other developers are also free to innovate without paying extra costs ..."
"... some free software person could look at our products, say to themselves "I like that, think I'll put it in the GIMP" and the only thing they have to do is figure out how."
... "Trade secrets leave academics free to research and publish along any line they care to go merrily thinking."
"... depends either on the idea that only I can invent these things (highly unlikely, but at least it is flattering) or that the idea isn't worth someone else's time ..."

Your whole discussion seems based on the notion that your "innovations" can easily be done by someone else. Those things shouldn't be patentable. Patents are supposed to be non-obvious to people in the field. Yes, there might be someone who, after a long time of reverse-engineering, figures out how you did it. But that's not the same thing as you are discussing. And yes, someone else might eventually come up with the same thing, but if the innovation is non-obvious, it is highly unlikely that they'd do it anywhere near the time you did it, which is why patents usually have a "first to invent" (or in some cases "first to apply") rule.

Think about it this way, if anyone could see what you have done and come up with a functional equivalent fairly easily (academia, open source, competitors, etc.), the trade secret is useless and offers no protection whatsoever. In other words, there is no protection, so you were wrong when you said in your first post "Trade secret is plenty of protection". You can't have it both ways. Either it is a secret so nobody can reproduce it (or benefit from the knowledge), or it is easy to figure out and therefore isn't a secret.

"Your thesis that trade-secret based innovations will be lost ..."

It isn't my thesis, it is the reason patents exist in the first place. A good quote I found is "The purpose of patents is to make public recent scientific discoveries that promote the development of new technology and new products." Most people overlook the "... to make public ..." part. Even on the USPTO website:"Through the preservation, classification, and dissemination of patent information, the Office promotes the industrial and technological progress of the nation and strengthens the economy." Note the "preservations" and "dissemination" to promote progress. Also note that the "protection" offered by patents is not the driving factor for progress, it is the "dissemination".

Searching 1976 to present...
Results of Search in 1976 to present db for:
AN/("International Business Machines" OR IBM): 39148 patents.
Hits 1 through 50 out of 39148

As this result does not include non-U.S. nor pre-1976 patents, I guess this is pretty much in line with the world wide search result.

Searching 1976 to present...
Results of Search in 1976 to present db for:
AN/("International Business Machines" OR IBM): 39148 patents.
Hits 1 through 50 out of 39148

As this result does not include non-U.S. nor pre-1976 patents, I guess this is pretty much in line with the world wide search result.

Why link from itfacts.biz when you can get the same data and a bit more write-up directly from the source? (See the source link on the itfacts.biz site.)

If you follow the link to USPTO from TFA -- here -- you'll see that the US Govt. has 829 patents for 2004. I find it interesting how/why a government can patent things.

Anyone can explain why the US Govt. patents stuff?

Software is not patentable. So why are they persisting to do wrong?

Here's a thought as to why they don't yet get it (nobody wants to tell them why its really not patentable.)

In regards to dealing with increased complexity in software MS has their longhorn and their software factories effort, free software has its edos project, neither of which are in promotion of honesty regarding programming, or what is the application of abstraction physics.

Its really quite simple. To support the non-patentability of software the foundation upon which software is created must be supported the same. Free Software development community doesn't want to do this anymore than proprietary software campanies.

For its always about money based upon some mode of elitism. With Free Software its the service oriented products/applications and complexity out of teh reach of most customers, with proprietary software its exclusive use.

But if the arguement that software is not patentable due to its abstract ideas status, that anyone is capable of abstract logical thought and ideas, then that status has to be supported by making software obviously easy enough that the "free software" label will be because software is easy enough to create that its free in the sense that anyone can create it or cause the machine to, regardless of their knowledge resource. (you don't need to know how a calculator works to use it to calculate an equasion you input or hit the key that does some equasion for you - ie pi)

How do I know this? In a email to various participants of Edos, (Of which experience tells me not to expect any support for honesty about abstraction physics. Or any indication they got the email, as avoidance seems to be thought to be proof against something the thing being avoided), I wrote:

RE: press release "Major European research institutions and Open Source software companies today announced the launch of EDOS, a project dealing with complexity management in the field of Open Source software. The participants will collaborate in the development of theoretical and technical solutions to the management of large-scale, modular software projects..."

Abstraction Physics is the foundation of the practical application solutions. Deal with that, establish the mechanics and create the software mechanism and the rest will come easy (or boringly repetitive), where there is plenty to apply "navigational mapping" to and productively exaust the funds on and I believe to accomplish a lot more then thought possible regarding the EDOS goals.

from: - ffii.org - Software Patents
to: Advances in software are advances in abstraction
Then to: Abstraction Physics

Microsofts direction with longhorn.

Google search "web" for: "Timothy Rue" patents a few links from that search are here
and here (-see comment #4 - I'm/VIC USPTO published protected!)

I can wonder why the USPTO edited my comment and removed the near transparent markup but here is the version I sent them (with contact information limited). Also this google finding.

The Virtual Interaction Configurationion project is GPL'd (forkable and all the other things allowed) and would amount to maybe a drop in the bucket, in comparison to the funding and manpower the EDOS project has available, it could be completed and I believe used to surpass the goals of EDOS.

Current state is that of needing some correction and completion in the current python code, integration of the existing IQ and ID commands and the c

What you say may be true about USPTO employees; I can't say. However, the USPTO itself collects fees that don't apply to rejected patents.

Web browser column control - A real extension to web browsers, not just a patent of HTML.

Internet assisted mail - Email as far as possible, then print it out and mail it to them for the remainder of the distance.

Web browser column control - A real extension to web browsers, not just a patent of HTML.

Internet assisted mail - Email as far as possible, then print it out and mail it to them for the remainder of the distance.

I'm sure they are talking about improving the existing mechanisms and are aware of 37 CFR 1.99 which begins with:
"A submission by a member of the public of patents or publications relevant to a pending published application may be entered in the application file if the submission complies with the requirements of this section and the application is still pending when the submission and application file are brought before the examiner."

As I'm sure we all know, patent applications filed after November 29, 2000 will be published as a Pre-Grant Publication within 18 months of submission. There is also some existing mechanism that allows a third party to protest an issued patent and have it re-examined, but I'm not familiar with the procedure or the details beyond what I've already said. Note that I'm not saying they're suggesting a dumb policy, but instead pointing out that they must be referring to an improvement in the existing system that allows third parties to challenge a patent application.

They also suggest:
Promote high-quality search and examination results by improving the prior art database. BSA supports efforts to improve prior art databases and promote work and resource sharing to ensure that patent examiners throughout the world have access to these databases.

This is probably an excellent suggestion if implemented effectively. For all the griping about the poor quality of issued patents, resources like IBM's Technical Disclosure Bulletins are more of a novelty than an industry standard procedure. I'm sure there would be value in assembling a technically oriented, well documented database of the history of computer technology. Even stuff like the date that Microsoft first used Clippy-like helpers might be hard to find and cite authoritatively - modern refences that point to Microsoft BOB in 1995 are easy to find, but finding a reference from 1995 detailing the little dog could be a challenge. (Don't kill me if you have one, that's just a quick example.)

Note: yes, I know there is possible prior art to AOP but that doesn't change the fact that the USPTO has issued a patent on it.

MediaFusion was a joke. I remember running across a blurb in Popular Science about their 'technology'.
I eventually found their 'patent' which was little more than a line drawing of network topology. To top it off, there were spelling and logic mistakes throughout. I contacted their rep about it, who seemed to be in a jobs like distortion field.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,982,276.WKU.&OS=PN/5,982,276&RS =PN/5,982,276

Even if you reinvent it, you will be liable for royalties.

USPTO 5,707,114

the wheel with rim and a hub and spokes between them is according to uspto someones intellectual property: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5707114.WKU.&OS=PN/5707114&RS=PN/ 5707114

Funny ... but wrong.

This link shows that Apple filed for a trademark in 2004. So maybe iWork is what we're getting?

Using (TM) doesn't indicate that you own the trademark, it simply indicates that it is a protected trademark.

And I don't belive that the DMCA in that context is trademarked. Now, if you're talking about the Direct Mail Corporation of America, that's a different story.

That's quite wrong! Where did you get those figures from? I had a teacher who filed patents for himself every few years, and made money from them. You can file one yourself; a lawyer or even a patent agent is not required. In the US it costs $75 for a small entity to file for an utility patent with three claims, $250 for the pantent search, $100 for the examination fee, and $700 to issue the patent. See the fee schedule.

Not only that, but this stuff is also patented, see: here.

You already have to renew a patent, and it costs money. The problem with that idea is that, again, it only hurts the little guy (like me). If you make the cost of renewal high enough that it will be of any consequence to an IBM or a Microsoft, that completely eliminates the small inventor. He'll never be able to afford to maintain the patent long enough to make anything of it (going through the already-considerable time and expense of acquiring a patent doesn't mean squat, if you don't have the resources and especially the time to build a business around your idea.)

The problem with using fees to maintain the patent office is that a. it's massively discriminatory in favor of larger organizations and b. simply encourages the bureacracy to be less scrupulous in determining the validity of a patent application (the more patents they issue, the more money they recieve over the life of those patents.) I predicted that would happen when Congress began funding the USPTO from the fee system, and I was right. I have a couple of patents in my name and I have to pay the maintenance costs ... it didn't used to be that way and I think it's wrong. Frankly, a reliable patent office is something where we shouldn't be too stingy with our tax dollars since it's just too damned important. There's plenty of other useless bureacratic waste that could be eliminated to pay for a quality USPTO. Furthermore, given that single inventors and small companies do have a lot to contribute, we shouldn't squeeze them out. But let's face it, the power of the patent has been successfully subverted, and I might add that the current sad state of the USPTO was no accident. Congress passed specific laws that resulted in the patent nightmare we are facing today.

Patenting a physical implementation of an idea is one thing (and is what the patent system was designed to protect.) Traditionally, patenting an idea was out, simply because the Founders knew that it would lead to the kinds of abuses we're seeing to today. Given that the term "software patent" has become synonymous with "patenting an idea" they should simply be eliminated, and any previously granted patents invalidated. As a purely intellectual exercise, software already has copyright protection and given how potent that has become lately, we really just don't need software patents. They accomplish absolutely NOTHING in terms of advancing the state of the art or encouraging the development of new technologies. Software development moves so fast, and is so dependent upon existing (and now frequently patented) ideas and techniques that software patents do way, WAY more harm than good.

I don't know if I agree with you about the non-transferability of patents, though. Many tech companies are built around one or two key patents, and if the corporation cannot own the patent ... well. That would be problematic for many reasons. If the company doesn't own the patents, it would be hard to get investors (what if the inventor croaks? Who owns the rights then?) But it might be more reasonable to say that a patent can't be transferred to a business that has no current interest in anything covered by that patent. I dunno. But something needs to change before nobody can design or build anything in this country without paying juice money to a hundred "intellectual property holders", which is synonymous with "blood sucking leech".

Check this out Fee Schedule

The title of a patent is meaningless. I read one last week for "Remote Control Device" which was a high pressure hydraulic hoze/nozzle that could be aimed from a distance, used in mining operations. There is no legal weight in a patent title and while the intention is that they are informative, there is uneven enforcement of that rule.

From one of the abstracts: 'The system retrieves transaction data such as credit card receipts checks in either electronic or paper form at one or more remote locations, encrypts the data, transmits the encrypted data to a central location, transforms the data to a usable form, performs identification verification using signature data and biometric data, generates informative reports from the data and transmits the informative reports to the remote location(s).'

The abstract of a patent has no legal weight. The rules regarding abstracts are more evenly enforced than titles, as the abstracts are useful to examiners, but the typical attorney couldn't care if the abstract recited a recipe for meatloaf.

Here are the patents under debate:
6032137
5910988
Linking to the actual patent is trivial, however undermines the element of FUD which wins the submitter such karma and peer approval. (Rather than mod this as a troll, proving at least to myself how correct I am, feel free to explain to me why failing to link to the patents themselves helps an intelligent discussion rather than perpetuating the FUD.)

The claims of a patent are the only part of a patent that undisputably carries legal weight. Any discussion about whether a patent should or should not have been issued that does not relate strictly to the claims is nonsense - it is directly analogous to praising Windows because you can use a mouse on a graphical screen. It is uneducated, pointless, and irritating to anyone who knows that other operating systems use mouse pointers and graphical screens.

Further, these patents will come under extreme attack if they are used in court. Merely having these patents is meaningless. When these patents are used against someone, he would be a complete idiot to not first question whether the patents can be invalidated in court. This is how the patent system works and this is why you can apply for a patent for under $2000 - a thorough search for prior art will cost over $100,000 and the USPTO cannot afford to give those out for $2000. Only the media and those who do not properly understand the existing system of patent litigation expect the USPTO to provide a perfect search of prior art for 2% of the market value of such a search.

In conclusion, while there may be a great deal of problems with these patents, and plenty of legitimate complaints about the how the system works, the submitter of this story addresses nothing but meaningless and baseless fluff. There would be more substance to the complaints if he griped about the poor scan quality of the documents. Please keep in mind that I'm not arguing the merits of these patents, but rather pointing out that the submitter addresses no valid complaints because, by analogy, he's busy arguing whether the Windows is better than OSX by pointing out how pretty the Windows desktop is.

But moderators, if you fear that facts might interfere with your self-affirmation, by all means convince me that I'm correct (regarding the subject line) and moderate this as a troll.

The title of a patent is meaningless. I read one last week for "Remote Control Device" which was a high pressure hydraulic hoze/nozzle that could be aimed from a distance, used in mining operations. There is no legal weight in a patent title and while the intention is that they are informative, there is uneven enforcement of that rule.

From one of the abstracts: 'The system retrieves transaction data such as credit card receipts checks in either electronic or paper form at one or more remote locations, encrypts the data, transmits the encrypted data to a central location, transforms the data to a usable form, performs identification verification using signature data and biometric data, generates informative reports from the data and transmits the informative reports to the remote location(s).'

The abstract of a patent has no legal weight. The rules regarding abstracts are more evenly enforced than titles, as the abstracts are useful to examiners, but the typical attorney couldn't care if the abstract recited a recipe for meatloaf.

Here are the patents under debate:
6032137
5910988
Linking to the actual patent is trivial, however undermines the element of FUD which wins the submitter such karma and peer approval. (Rather than mod this as a troll, proving at least to myself how correct I am, feel free to explain to me why failing to link to the patents themselves helps an intelligent discussion rather than perpetuating the FUD.)

The claims of a patent are the only part of a patent that undisputably carries legal weight. Any discussion about whether a patent should or should not have been issued that does not relate strictly to the claims is nonsense - it is directly analogous to praising Windows because you can use a mouse on a graphical screen. It is uneducated, pointless, and irritating to anyone who knows that other operating systems use mouse pointers and graphical screens.

Further, these patents will come under extreme attack if they are used in court. Merely having these patents is meaningless. When these patents are used against someone, he would be a complete idiot to not first question whether the patents can be invalidated in court. This is how the patent system works and this is why you can apply for a patent for under $2000 - a thorough search for prior art will cost over $100,000 and the USPTO cannot afford to give those out for $2000. Only the media and those who do not properly understand the existing system of patent litigation expect the USPTO to provide a perfect search of prior art for 2% of the market value of such a search.

In conclusion, while there may be a great deal of problems with these patents, and plenty of legitimate complaints about the how the system works, the submitter of this story addresses nothing but meaningless and baseless fluff. There would be more substance to the complaints if he griped about the poor scan quality of the documents. Please keep in mind that I'm not arguing the merits of these patents, but rather pointing out that the submitter addresses no valid complaints because, by analogy, he's busy arguing whether the Windows is better than OSX by pointing out how pretty the Windows desktop is.

But moderators, if you fear that facts might interfere with your self-affirmation, by all means convince me that I'm correct (regarding the subject line) and moderate this as a troll.

Well...if someone already patented the combover (U.S. Patent # 4022227), then anything is possible. Go for it!

Tor Books is going to have to get in line behind the trademarked Tor Consulting, Mattel Inc's trademarked Tor-Speedo, TOR Minerals International's trademarked TOR BRITE pigment which they also also trademarked as TOR COAT, BTJ's trademarked TOR book sorting machines, Metal Box's TOR empty containers, Huntington Lamboratories' tradmarked Tor Multi-Purpose Germicidal Cleaner, and almost a hundred others.

I was going to link the full list, but I don't think the search result link will work. Instead you can simply go to the US Patent and Trademark Office, click Trademark-search, New User Form Search (Basic), and enter search term TOR.

Having a trademark does not make that word or phrase your "property". Like all so called "intellectual property", trademarks exist for the public's benefit not the holder's benefit. To put it simply, trademarks exist to protect the public from being confused/deceived as to what they are buying or who they are buying it from. I am perfectly free to sell Tor bubblegum because no one is going to confuse it with Tor science fiction novels. I cannot however sell Folex watches because people are likely to be confused and ripped off thinking they were buying a high quality and valuable Rolex watch.

-

Tor Books is going to have to get in line behind the trademarked Tor Consulting, Mattel Inc's trademarked Tor-Speedo, TOR Minerals International's trademarked TOR BRITE pigment which they also also trademarked as TOR COAT, BTJ's trademarked TOR book sorting machines, Metal Box's TOR empty containers, Huntington Lamboratories' tradmarked Tor Multi-Purpose Germicidal Cleaner, and almost a hundred others.

I was going to link the full list, but I don't think the search result link will work. Instead you can simply go to the US Patent and Trademark Office, click Trademark-search, New User Form Search (Basic), and enter search term TOR.

Having a trademark does not make that word or phrase your "property". Like all so called "intellectual property", trademarks exist for the public's benefit not the holder's benefit. To put it simply, trademarks exist to protect the public from being confused/deceived as to what they are buying or who they are buying it from. I am perfectly free to sell Tor bubblegum because no one is going to confuse it with Tor science fiction novels. I cannot however sell Folex watches because people are likely to be confused and ripped off thinking they were buying a high quality and valuable Rolex watch.

-

Tor Books is going to have to get in line behind the trademarked Tor Consulting, Mattel Inc's trademarked Tor-Speedo, TOR Minerals International's trademarked TOR BRITE pigment which they also also trademarked as TOR COAT, BTJ's trademarked TOR book sorting machines, Metal Box's TOR empty containers, Huntington Lamboratories' tradmarked Tor Multi-Purpose Germicidal Cleaner, and almost a hundred others.

I was going to link the full list, but I don't think the search result link will work. Instead you can simply go to the US Patent and Trademark Office, click Trademark-search, New User Form Search (Basic), and enter search term TOR.

Having a trademark does not make that word or phrase your "property". Like all so called "intellectual property", trademarks exist for the public's benefit not the holder's benefit. To put it simply, trademarks exist to protect the public from being confused/deceived as to what they are buying or who they are buying it from. I am perfectly free to sell Tor bubblegum because no one is going to confuse it with Tor science fiction novels. I cannot however sell Folex watches because people are likely to be confused and ripped off thinking they were buying a high quality and valuable Rolex watch.

-

Tor Books is going to have to get in line behind the trademarked Tor Consulting, Mattel Inc's trademarked Tor-Speedo, TOR Minerals International's trademarked TOR BRITE pigment which they also also trademarked as TOR COAT, BTJ's trademarked TOR book sorting machines, Metal Box's TOR empty containers, Huntington Lamboratories' tradmarked Tor Multi-Purpose Germicidal Cleaner, and almost a hundred others.

I was going to link the full list, but I don't think the search result link will work. Instead you can simply go to the US Patent and Trademark Office, click Trademark-search, New User Form Search (Basic), and enter search term TOR.

Having a trademark does not make that word or phrase your "property". Like all so called "intellectual property", trademarks exist for the public's benefit not the holder's benefit. To put it simply, trademarks exist to protect the public from being confused/deceived as to what they are buying or who they are buying it from. I am perfectly free to sell Tor bubblegum because no one is going to confuse it with Tor science fiction novels. I cannot however sell Folex watches because people are likely to be confused and ripped off thinking they were buying a high quality and valuable Rolex watch.

-

Tor Books is going to have to get in line behind the trademarked Tor Consulting, Mattel Inc's trademarked Tor-Speedo, TOR Minerals International's trademarked TOR BRITE pigment which they also also trademarked as TOR COAT, BTJ's trademarked TOR book sorting machines, Metal Box's TOR empty containers, Huntington Lamboratories' tradmarked Tor Multi-Purpose Germicidal Cleaner, and almost a hundred others.

I was going to link the full list, but I don't think the search result link will work. Instead you can simply go to the US Patent and Trademark Office, click Trademark-search, New User Form Search (Basic), and enter search term TOR.

Having a trademark does not make that word or phrase your "property". Like all so called "intellectual property", trademarks exist for the public's benefit not the holder's benefit. To put it simply, trademarks exist to protect the public from being confused/deceived as to what they are buying or who they are buying it from. I am perfectly free to sell Tor bubblegum because no one is going to confuse it with Tor science fiction novels. I cannot however sell Folex watches because people are likely to be confused and ripped off thinking they were buying a high quality and valuable Rolex watch.

-

Tor Books is going to have to get in line behind the trademarked Tor Consulting, Mattel Inc's trademarked Tor-Speedo, TOR Minerals International's trademarked TOR BRITE pigment which they also also trademarked as TOR COAT, BTJ's trademarked TOR book sorting machines, Metal Box's TOR empty containers, Huntington Lamboratories' tradmarked Tor Multi-Purpose Germicidal Cleaner, and almost a hundred others.

I was going to link the full list, but I don't think the search result link will work. Instead you can simply go to the US Patent and Trademark Office, click Trademark-search, New User Form Search (Basic), and enter search term TOR.

Having a trademark does not make that word or phrase your "property". Like all so called "intellectual property", trademarks exist for the public's benefit not the holder's benefit. To put it simply, trademarks exist to protect the public from being confused/deceived as to what they are buying or who they are buying it from. I am perfectly free to sell Tor bubblegum because no one is going to confuse it with Tor science fiction novels. I cannot however sell Folex watches because people are likely to be confused and ripped off thinking they were buying a high quality and valuable Rolex watch.

-

Tor Books is going to have to get in line behind the trademarked Tor Consulting, Mattel Inc's trademarked Tor-Speedo, TOR Minerals International's trademarked TOR BRITE pigment which they also also trademarked as TOR COAT, BTJ's trademarked TOR book sorting machines, Metal Box's TOR empty containers, Huntington Lamboratories' tradmarked Tor Multi-Purpose Germicidal Cleaner, and almost a hundred others.

I was going to link the full list, but I don't think the search result link will work. Instead you can simply go to the US Patent and Trademark Office, click Trademark-search, New User Form Search (Basic), and enter search term TOR.

Having a trademark does not make that word or phrase your "property". Like all so called "intellectual property", trademarks exist for the public's benefit not the holder's benefit. To put it simply, trademarks exist to protect the public from being confused/deceived as to what they are buying or who they are buying it from. I am perfectly free to sell Tor bubblegum because no one is going to confuse it with Tor science fiction novels. I cannot however sell Folex watches because people are likely to be confused and ripped off thinking they were buying a high quality and valuable Rolex watch.

-