Slashdot Mirror

5,597,307
6,418,532

Of course, it fails the obviousness test, but since the USPO has aparently interpereted this test to be `obvious to somoene who doesn't know what a computer is and has no problem solving ability at all'...

5,597,307
5,795,156
6,249,863
6,418,532

Special Search - all Patents by "assignee" same

5,597,307
5,795,156
6,249,863
6,418,532

Special Search - all Patents by "assignee" same

5,597,307
5,795,156
6,249,863
6,418,532

Special Search - all Patents by "assignee" same

5,597,307
5,795,156
6,249,863
6,418,532

Special Search - all Patents by "assignee" same

5,597,307
5,795,156
6,249,863
6,418,532

Special Search - all Patents by "assignee" same

Evidently the new idea is that even the product your suing shouldn't be considered prior art. The first patent, 5,597,307, was filed in May 1995. The last Beta of Windows 95 was in March 1995 and the Microsoft DRG people were talking about it in 1994 (Auto-play was evangelized to ISVs - "Mr ISV you need to make sure that your application uses Auto-play"). What it looks like here is that the current patent strategy is to wait until someone releases a product then patent the features that aren't covered. Hopefully this is yet another nail in the stuipidity of patent issuing.

oops... check here

Mozilla is now smarter after the firebird incident. They have filed a trademark application for firefox

Patents are a total joke. The only reason everyone is not suing everyone over patents is that no reasonably large companies are going to sue each other because of the surity of mutually assured destruction (i.e.: any reasonably large company can use there patents to bankcrupt any other), and no individual is even going to attempt fighting the big companies.

Patents are a total joke. The only reason everyone is not suing everyone over patents is that no reasonably large companies are going to sue each other because of the surity of mutually assured destruction (i.e.: any reasonably large company can use there patents to bankcrupt any other), and no individual is even going to attempt fighting the big companies.

Dan Gillmor link to the Patent Application Information Retrieval for this patent. All actions with regard to this patent are being logged there in the The File Contents History.

A interesting entree from 02-23-2001 says: Case Reported Lost! Unfortunately it was found again. :(

http://www.uspto.gov/web/forms/sb0042.pdf

There are several ways to file prior art depending on the status of the application, but this is likely what you are looking for. This filing, known as a "501", is free. It is unlikely that the PTO will decide to reexamine a patent on their own volition(known as sua sponte). Usually you have to file a request for a reexamination. The fee is about $9,000, plus the cost of counsel.

If you'd like to do some light reading on this kind of filing, it was created under Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations, rule 1.501 (cited as 37 C.F.R. 1.501). You can find a reference in the United States Code at 35 U.S.C. 301 (the law) and in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP), the book the patent examiners use, at MPEP 2202. All of these resources are on the web, but check that you are looking at the latest revision (Feb 2003, 8th edition, first revision). These are all available at the USPTO website.

This isn't intended to be legal advice, and this doesn't mean that I am accepting you as a client. If you are planning to try and take down a major patent (or do much of anything with the USPTO) you really ought to seek qualified representation. I'm not a lawyer, but I am a member of the patent bar (basically I have a license to file for patents).

This is the Eolas text. Who thinks such a thing novel?

I think it still does show (more or less) what you're thinking of. The first registration I can find for MICROSOFT WINDOWS has a 2(f) claim, meaning that WINDOWS was registered on the basis of acquired distinctiveness. Essentially that in the abstract, the element WINDOWS was not registrable and thus subject to disclaimer- the 2(f) claim cures that by asserting that it is distinctive in the marketplace in spite of that. It only requires that the term be in "substantially exclusive and continuous use" for the previous 5 years, and such an assertion by Microsoft is sufficient to forgo any further PTO analysis of the issue. The registration also includes a logo.

Anyway, I have to bet that actual registration rights are just perhipheral to this litigation anyway- I'm sure it would impress a judge/jury more if MS were able to trot out some unrestricted trademark registration from the mid-80's, but it doesn't seem strictly necessary to show likelihood of confusion.

I would argue that regardless of whether it qualifies as famous, the word Nike is not distinctive enough to warrant such protection because TESS sez that not only has the trademark "Nike" been used before (best examples in the dead marks at the end of the third page), but these two are still live.

Even the page you linked states at the bottom that what qualifies as famous would be a matter of some controversy in the courts.

I'm not saying you're wrong, just that this sucks as least as much as the absurdly hideous and unweildly prospective name "Mozilla Nike" that started this nonsense. I don't see why Nike, Inc. should get to own the name Nike just because they're good at selling tennis shoes when it wasn't even their name to begin with. My inner intellectual is appalled.

BTW, I went to Nike, Inc.'s web site to look for an FAQ/history in their corporate page on use of the name Nike, and couldn't find any, but boy does my head hurt after sitting through their ridiculous flash based web pages. Ouch!

I would argue that regardless of whether it qualifies as famous, the word Nike is not distinctive enough to warrant such protection because TESS sez that not only has the trademark "Nike" been used before (best examples in the dead marks at the end of the third page), but these two are still live.

Even the page you linked states at the bottom that what qualifies as famous would be a matter of some controversy in the courts.

I'm not saying you're wrong, just that this sucks as least as much as the absurdly hideous and unweildly prospective name "Mozilla Nike" that started this nonsense. I don't see why Nike, Inc. should get to own the name Nike just because they're good at selling tennis shoes when it wasn't even their name to begin with. My inner intellectual is appalled.

BTW, I went to Nike, Inc.'s web site to look for an FAQ/history in their corporate page on use of the name Nike, and couldn't find any, but boy does my head hurt after sitting through their ridiculous flash based web pages. Ouch!

I would argue that regardless of whether it qualifies as famous, the word Nike is not distinctive enough to warrant such protection because TESS sez that not only has the trademark "Nike" been used before (best examples in the dead marks at the end of the third page), but these two are still live.

Even the page you linked states at the bottom that what qualifies as famous would be a matter of some controversy in the courts.

I'm not saying you're wrong, just that this sucks as least as much as the absurdly hideous and unweildly prospective name "Mozilla Nike" that started this nonsense. I don't see why Nike, Inc. should get to own the name Nike just because they're good at selling tennis shoes when it wasn't even their name to begin with. My inner intellectual is appalled.

BTW, I went to Nike, Inc.'s web site to look for an FAQ/history in their corporate page on use of the name Nike, and couldn't find any, but boy does my head hurt after sitting through their ridiculous flash based web pages. Ouch!

I would argue that regardless of whether it qualifies as famous, the word Nike is not distinctive enough to warrant such protection because TESS sez that not only has the trademark "Nike" been used before (best examples in the dead marks at the end of the third page), but these two are still live.

Even the page you linked states at the bottom that what qualifies as famous would be a matter of some controversy in the courts.

I'm not saying you're wrong, just that this sucks as least as much as the absurdly hideous and unweildly prospective name "Mozilla Nike" that started this nonsense. I don't see why Nike, Inc. should get to own the name Nike just because they're good at selling tennis shoes when it wasn't even their name to begin with. My inner intellectual is appalled.

BTW, I went to Nike, Inc.'s web site to look for an FAQ/history in their corporate page on use of the name Nike, and couldn't find any, but boy does my head hurt after sitting through their ridiculous flash based web pages. Ouch!

And, they should f'n register a trademark...

They are indeed registering it as a trademark.

The name is being filed as a trademark and is apparently pretty unique. I was at first leery of another name change, but this should hopefully sort things out once and for all. Also the new fiery-fox-on-globe logo is really cool and firefoxes (aka red pandas) are just soooo cute.

BTW, the long delay in the new 0.8 release -- which adds a MSWindows installer, a new default theme for MacOS X and improved filetype, XPI and download management and other stuff -- is explained by the time taken to verify that the new name was unique and to file the trademark.

There is more info about the name change in the official FAQ and a lot of unofficial detail on Ben Goodger's blog

The name is being filed as a trademark and is apparently pretty unique. I was at first leery of another name change, but this should hopefully sort things out once and for all. Also the new fiery-fox-on-globe logo is really cool and firefoxes (aka red pandas) are just soooo cute.

BTW, the long delay in the new 0.8 release -- which adds a MSWindows installer, a new default theme for MacOS X and improved filetype, XPI and download management and other stuff -- is explained by the time taken to verify that the new name was unique and to file the trademark.

There is more info about the name change in the official FAQ and a lot of unofficial detail on Ben Goodger's blog

It's nothing new. The US Patent Office even advertises the fact that it has such a "secret" plan on its website.

The patent was filed July 29, 1998. As detailed at the USPTO .

This patent looks like a RISC processor patent, a couple of decades too late. It's a joke and will be struck down in court, if their is any sanity left in this world.

This application is a division of U.S. application Ser. No. 07/389,334, filed Aug. 3, 1989, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,440,749.

It is interesting to note that the patent application was actually filed on June 7, 1995, which was the last date for a patent application to be actually filed and still enjoy the old "17 years from issue" versus today's "20 years from application" patent term.

Whose got a torpedo to take this submarine out?

Patent No. 6,598,148,
appears to be a divisional patent from patent No. 5,982,231, filed in 1989. In summary, the invention describes a CPU using both stack and register-based instructions which interfaces directly to DRAM memory over 32 shared address and data lines. Memory accesses are minimized by using mainly stack-based instructions and accessing memory in fast page mode. The invention is designed to minimize cost, fitting just tens of thousands of transistors into a 44-pin package, while delivering approximately 20 MIPS performance. While none of the design elements by themselves are new or unique, the particular combination chosen seems to fit the definition of a real invention that was not in existence before 1989.

The features which seem to relate to its claims of variable speed are the use of an on-board ring oscillator to drive the system clock, and memory cycle timing which automatically adjusts to the loading seen from attached memory devices. Using an on-board ring oscillator means that the system clock can be driven by a device built with process parameters identical to other devices on the chip. If CPU transistors are a little slow on a batch of chips, the ring oscillator transistors will be similarly slow and the chips will continue to work at a slower but reliable speed.

It's just not clear to me how Patriot Scientific can claim that companies like Intel are infringing on their patent. Is it because Intel's products contain technology which also happens to appear in their invention, but which they themselves did not invent? None of the individual technologies used in the Patriot device originated with them, and it appears that only the specific combination of those technologies described in the patent application would have qualified it for approval. However, the patent claims are written in such a way as to seemingly describe a much broader range of CPU designs, many examples of which were certainly in existence before even the original patent application by Patriot was filed.

I've seen it stated that the claims are the only important part of a patent. That seems to be the big problem with this particular patent. What happens when a legitimate invention is granted a patent with overly broad claims? Some patents are written with claims that include a range of claims, some very specific and some very broad, on the assumption that it's better to aim for as much as possible and settle for what you can get. This particular patent seems to have only broad claims. Does that make it easier or harder to try and overturn?

I don't know when the first Pentium came out with an on-chip clock, but that's probably not important anyway. I doubt if the patent is on the idea of an on-chip clock -- they can hardly claim to be the first people to have invented the concept of component integration! More likely they're claiming to have invented a design or manufacturing technique... oh well, might as well go look it up.

Yup, here's the 1995 patent application. It's too complicated for me, but they seem be claiming that their design manages to produce a steady clock signal even as temperature fluctuations play holy hell with the oscillations that produce the clock signal. Assuming I haven't totally mangled the concept, and that they really did think of this first, that's a pretty significant invention. It's certainly not on the same level as these business-process and software patents that we all love to hate.

no patent numbers were given. Here is a list of microprocessor related patents assigned to Patriot Scientific:

6,598,148 High performance microprocessor having variable speed system clock
5,809,336 High performance microprocessor having variable speed system clock
5,784,584 High performance microprocessor using instructions that operate within instruction groups
5,659,703 Microprocessor system with hierarchical stack and method of operation

All of these patents appear to be divisional patents of another patent:
5,440,749 High performance, low cost microprocessor architecture
which was filed in August of 1989 (for the most part, this date should be taken to be the effective priority date of all the above applications) and assigned to Nanotronics Corporation.

Please remember that titles, abstracts, and descriptions from the patent mean nothing legally. The only section which has any legal weight is the claims, so please don't start complaining about old microprocessors as "prior art" unless they actually do the same thing as is stated in the claims.

no patent numbers were given. Here is a list of microprocessor related patents assigned to Patriot Scientific:

6,598,148 High performance microprocessor having variable speed system clock
5,809,336 High performance microprocessor having variable speed system clock
5,784,584 High performance microprocessor using instructions that operate within instruction groups
5,659,703 Microprocessor system with hierarchical stack and method of operation

All of these patents appear to be divisional patents of another patent:
5,440,749 High performance, low cost microprocessor architecture
which was filed in August of 1989 (for the most part, this date should be taken to be the effective priority date of all the above applications) and assigned to Nanotronics Corporation.

Please remember that titles, abstracts, and descriptions from the patent mean nothing legally. The only section which has any legal weight is the claims, so please don't start complaining about old microprocessors as "prior art" unless they actually do the same thing as is stated in the claims.

no patent numbers were given. Here is a list of microprocessor related patents assigned to Patriot Scientific:

6,598,148 High performance microprocessor having variable speed system clock
5,809,336 High performance microprocessor having variable speed system clock
5,784,584 High performance microprocessor using instructions that operate within instruction groups
5,659,703 Microprocessor system with hierarchical stack and method of operation

All of these patents appear to be divisional patents of another patent:
5,440,749 High performance, low cost microprocessor architecture
which was filed in August of 1989 (for the most part, this date should be taken to be the effective priority date of all the above applications) and assigned to Nanotronics Corporation.

Please remember that titles, abstracts, and descriptions from the patent mean nothing legally. The only section which has any legal weight is the claims, so please don't start complaining about old microprocessors as "prior art" unless they actually do the same thing as is stated in the claims.

no patent numbers were given. Here is a list of microprocessor related patents assigned to Patriot Scientific:

6,598,148 High performance microprocessor having variable speed system clock
5,809,336 High performance microprocessor having variable speed system clock
5,784,584 High performance microprocessor using instructions that operate within instruction groups
5,659,703 Microprocessor system with hierarchical stack and method of operation

All of these patents appear to be divisional patents of another patent:
5,440,749 High performance, low cost microprocessor architecture
which was filed in August of 1989 (for the most part, this date should be taken to be the effective priority date of all the above applications) and assigned to Nanotronics Corporation.

Please remember that titles, abstracts, and descriptions from the patent mean nothing legally. The only section which has any legal weight is the claims, so please don't start complaining about old microprocessors as "prior art" unless they actually do the same thing as is stated in the claims.

no patent numbers were given. Here is a list of microprocessor related patents assigned to Patriot Scientific:

6,598,148 High performance microprocessor having variable speed system clock
5,809,336 High performance microprocessor having variable speed system clock
5,784,584 High performance microprocessor using instructions that operate within instruction groups
5,659,703 Microprocessor system with hierarchical stack and method of operation

All of these patents appear to be divisional patents of another patent:
5,440,749 High performance, low cost microprocessor architecture
which was filed in August of 1989 (for the most part, this date should be taken to be the effective priority date of all the above applications) and assigned to Nanotronics Corporation.

Please remember that titles, abstracts, and descriptions from the patent mean nothing legally. The only section which has any legal weight is the claims, so please don't start complaining about old microprocessors as "prior art" unless they actually do the same thing as is stated in the claims.

Here is the official patent from the USPTO. It was originally filed in 1998, but IC's have been around much longer than that, so I'm sure there's some prior art somewhere. This next quote could almost have come from the depths of the SCO complex:

"'Our Main focus is the IP [intellectual property] business now,'" he [CEO Jeff Wallin] said."

Kinda sounds like Rambus and look where they've gone.

Amigori

Well, as computers become more and more "trusted", we'll start losing things gradually. Here HP have a patent application on RAM upgrades.

[0015] In one embodiment, non-volatile memory unit 103 has stored upon it firmware for managing the configuration of computer system 100. The firmware comprises instructions for limiting the addressable space of volatile memory unit 102. By limiting the addressable space, the memory density of volatile memory unit 102 can be controlled. For example, volatile memory unit 102 is a 512 MB SDRAM memory module (e.g., has a memory density of 512 MB). The firmware can lower the memory density, for example to 256 MB, by limiting the addressable space of volatile memory unit 102. In the present embodiment, processor 101 is only able to access the addressable space as dictated by the firmware. In one embodiment, volatile memory unit 102 is scalable to provide a plurality of memory densities. The plurality of memory densities comprises a first memory density and a second memory density. In one embodiment, the first memory density is less than the second memory density.

[0016] In one embodiment, a system command is performed to upgrade the memory density of volatile memory unit 102 from the first memory density to the second memory density. In one embodiment, volatile memory unit 102 is a scalable memory unit initially programmed to operate at the first memory density.

Sigh...

Looks like Microsoft beat you to it.

'On an intellectual-property level' What does this mean? It's a computer, they can't port the games?

Well, if you think about it, most of the games won't be just writing to DirectX/Direct3D only. Most or all of the pretty engines are going to be writing (for example) shader code directly for the Nvidia GPU that is built in to the XBOX.

Since we know that XBOX++ will not contain an Nvidia GPU (they're going with ATI instead), it is pretty safe to say that using binaries compiled for the current XBOX will not work. If they did, then that would mean that the graphics chips would have to be functionally identical (or at least close enough) to the Nvidia part. Nvidia probably holds a bunch of patents surrounding the chip which currently preclude this unless MS and/or ATI wants to get sued to oblivion.


Mechanik

Actually I am currently a patent examiner. So far I have not gone to law school, although I am considering doing so. I only have a BS in electrical engineering and no real legal training other than what I learned on the job.

As far as books I don't know of any off hand, although I am sure there are loads of them out there. The MPEP is basically the bible of patent examining and describes a lot of the nuances of the various laws, it is very very boring to read though.

Heaven forbid Intel reduce the 100W portable heater to a lower wattage.

Read some of the stuff in my sig, man. Intel has some "hot stuff" coming our way. *Lots* of solid-state storage. Although Intel hasn't gotten specific in their patents, Hitachi now has a good one that illustrates the magnatude of what is coming. A quote:

To resolve the aforementioned problems with the present invention, the present invention has the object of providing a memory cell structure and forming method for that memory cell utilizing a vertical transistor and capable of achieving a memory cell with a surface area of 4F.sup.2.

[...]

This laminated film is processed to a line-and-space state at a pitch of 0.2 microns as shown in FIG. 6.

[...]

Next as shown in FIG. 8, these can be formed in a line-and-space state with a pitch of 0.2 microns, in a direction perpendicular to the first wiring (701) that was previously formed.

So, to summarize, they have a 2-terminal memory device with a bit line pitch of 0.2 microns in both directions. 1000 microns in a millimeter = 25,000,000 cells per square MILLIMETER. The Intel patents hint to at least 2 layers of cells per chip and multi-bit capability of at least 4. Leaving room for addressing and logic, this works out to about 2 Gigabytes per square centimeter. Intel is going to stack this on the processor.

They will be releasing this in their upcoming Tejas processor. IMHO, the "stackable" design is for memory expansion - not for "64-bit extensions" as mentioned in the article. Also - Windows "Elements", also mentioned in the article, will be embedded into this NVRAM. DRM at its finest. It might be hard to buy one of these processors without a copy of Windows.

Heaven forbid Intel reduce the 100W portable heater to a lower wattage.

Read some of the stuff in my sig, man. Intel has some "hot stuff" coming our way. *Lots* of solid-state storage. Although Intel hasn't gotten specific in their patents, Hitachi now has a good one that illustrates the magnatude of what is coming. A quote:

To resolve the aforementioned problems with the present invention, the present invention has the object of providing a memory cell structure and forming method for that memory cell utilizing a vertical transistor and capable of achieving a memory cell with a surface area of 4F.sup.2.

[...]

This laminated film is processed to a line-and-space state at a pitch of 0.2 microns as shown in FIG. 6.

[...]

Next as shown in FIG. 8, these can be formed in a line-and-space state with a pitch of 0.2 microns, in a direction perpendicular to the first wiring (701) that was previously formed.

So, to summarize, they have a 2-terminal memory device with a bit line pitch of 0.2 microns in both directions. 1000 microns in a millimeter = 25,000,000 cells per square MILLIMETER. The Intel patents hint to at least 2 layers of cells per chip and multi-bit capability of at least 4. Leaving room for addressing and logic, this works out to about 2 Gigabytes per square centimeter. Intel is going to stack this on the processor.

They will be releasing this in their upcoming Tejas processor. IMHO, the "stackable" design is for memory expansion - not for "64-bit extensions" as mentioned in the article. Also - Windows "Elements", also mentioned in the article, will be embedded into this NVRAM. DRM at its finest. It might be hard to buy one of these processors without a copy of Windows.

I smell dead.

Bathe more often with Linux then. I'd recommend the shower gel.

You went through all the trouble to get a tinyurl, why not just make a damn clickable link?

US patent #5,901,206, portable telephone with flashlight, covers this. I'd just like to point out that, even though I assume you're not "skilled in the art," you came up with this idea easily enough. And given the sheer number of people in America, surely someone thought of it before 1999.

While IANAL, I don't believe this is--in general--true. A good patent lawyer or agent will construct the claims in a hierarchical fashion. In this way a very general claim may be tossed out in court, leaving the more specific claims to stand.

Look at recently bemoaned patent 6,671,714. It only has two claims. One (#1) is that is very general and less likely to stand up in court, and another (#2) in which the method of claim 1 is used specifically for members of a licensed profession (perhaps less likely to have prior art).

Guess what the T stands for.

I sincerely doubt this could be considered a "win" for anything. The article does not say who initiated this reexamination request. Chances are someone just filed a request for reexamination (see the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, Chapter 2200) which the USPTO accepted (See Smith & Hoppen, P.A. for a decent non-legal explanation of how this works).

Anyone can file such a request if they have the proper forms and $2520 (See 37 CFR s1.20). This option has been in place for awhile now, and I'm surprised it isn't brought up a lot more on slashdot.

I sincerely doubt this could be considered a "win" for anything. The article does not say who initiated this reexamination request. Chances are someone just filed a request for reexamination (see the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, Chapter 2200) which the USPTO accepted (See Smith & Hoppen, P.A. for a decent non-legal explanation of how this works).

Anyone can file such a request if they have the proper forms and $2520 (See 37 CFR s1.20). This option has been in place for awhile now, and I'm surprised it isn't brought up a lot more on slashdot.

If you want to be a patent attorney, you should check whether your undergraduate degree meets the requirements. Mine didn't: for CS only, your degree must be from a school with a specific accreditation, which my highly prestigious/snobbish Ivy League school didn't have. I suspect this is because they think somebody out there is giving "computer science" degrees for how-to-use-Microsoft-Word courses.

Anyway, as a result, I'm now a corporate lawyer instead. You don't need to be a patent attorney to do litigation, or trademarks and copyrights and other soft stuff, but, if you're a techie on the inside, you want it.

If your school's not properly blessed, see if you can cram in some extra chemistry or physics to meet the hour minimums.

if someone put up a site at doodle.com that was primarily a search engine, I think an intent to profit off of a similarity to Google's name and reputation would be quite likely.

And that is not harmful or illegal unless they actually misslead or confuse the public that they are Google.

And a variant spelling of the former ("Froogle") is already a trademark too -- belonging to Google.

Yes, and Google had to make an effort to establish that trademark.

If someone can deduce that Froogle is a service provided by Google

No, it is not "deducable" except as a result of Googles efforts establish that fact.

FROOGLE'S: Restaurant Services
FLOOGLE: Frozen Confections
BLOOGLE: TOY MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS
TOOTLE: 49 Records(s) found
DOODLE: 591 Records(s) found
FOOFLES: PEANUT-BASED SNACK FOODS
KOOGLE: noodle based baked food product
NOOGLES: TOILET SOAPS
ROOGLE: Wine
ZOOGLE: 13 Records(s) found

Virtually all of those trademarks predate the Google mark, never mind the more recent Froogle mark.

-

if someone put up a site at doodle.com that was primarily a search engine, I think an intent to profit off of a similarity to Google's name and reputation would be quite likely.

And that is not harmful or illegal unless they actually misslead or confuse the public that they are Google.

And a variant spelling of the former ("Froogle") is already a trademark too -- belonging to Google.

Yes, and Google had to make an effort to establish that trademark.

If someone can deduce that Froogle is a service provided by Google

No, it is not "deducable" except as a result of Googles efforts establish that fact.

FROOGLE'S: Restaurant Services
FLOOGLE: Frozen Confections
BLOOGLE: TOY MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS
TOOTLE: 49 Records(s) found
DOODLE: 591 Records(s) found
FOOFLES: PEANUT-BASED SNACK FOODS
KOOGLE: noodle based baked food product
NOOGLES: TOILET SOAPS
ROOGLE: Wine
ZOOGLE: 13 Records(s) found

Virtually all of those trademarks predate the Google mark, never mind the more recent Froogle mark.

-