Slashdot Mirror
X-Box Name Dispute In The Works
Machina writes: "Seems Microsoft was a little late in claiming their
X-Box Trademark . "Microsoft (MSFT) could face a
legal challenge to its use of the Xbox name
for its forthcoming videogame console.
Microsoft filed its claim to the name with
the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on
Oct. 18, 1999, but a Florida company
registered its use of the Xbox mark with
the USPTO on March 10, 1999. "
Microsoft do lots of evil things, but when was the last time you heard of them threatening to sue competitors over a patent or trademark? That's not really the way they operate. You're thinking of Apple, or IBM, or another such litigous nasty.
And it sounds like, in this instance, they're in the right. Much as I loathe them, this isn't the way I'd like to see them lose.
--
Xenu loves you!
This tech company was so concerned with the value of the name "Xbox", yet they never tried to get the xbox.com domain, which Microsoft owns? They changed their name from Nicollet Process Enginerring to XBOX Technologies two months before Microsoft filed for the "Xbox" trademark. I'm pretty sure that rumors were floating around about the Xbox name before Microsoft filed for the trademark, which was why everyone was speculating about the name.
So...anyone know when leaks first started appearing that Microsoft would name the system "Xbox?" Or if XBOX/NPE company is a "trademark squatter" and have filed for trademarks with a lot of other names that they don't use? If their ownership is a joke, they don't have much of a chance here.
Cheers,
Alright. Microsoft has registered the NAME X-Box. Whoopie. Now, lets try something here. Lets take a thin client, install X Windows on it, and then refer to it as an "X Box". From the literal perspective, one would have every right to refer to it as an "X Box", as it IS a box, and it IS running X.
Does a trademark name infringe on ones use of the english language? Are we forbidden from using the phrase "X Box" as a description, as opposed to a product name?
Just a rambling thought.....
Feed the need: Digitaladdiction.net
No, really. Two-odd years ago I was working for a (now since long-dead) startup, and our initial name was, you guessed it... X-Box. I wasn't so wowed by it, but whatever, I'm a developer, not a marketroid.
So I head out to check it out on Internic, and it turns out that someone had snatched the site up a few weeks before we wanted it. Shit.
So I check the site out, see that nothing's there. Portscan it (yes, I'm a bad person) and find out no fucking services are up and running on it. E-mail the provider, get forwarded to the owner, and he's got the huevos to tell me "I've got some very exciting functionality coming out from my website in the next year, but I'd be willing to part with it for $10,000." I scream various and sundry obscenities, call him a squatting shitbag (not to his face), but he stands firm on it.
Who knew the douche was sitting on such a goddamned goldmine?
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
Time and time again on /. various IP topics
come up and there are hundreds of incorrect
statements about IP law. Patents are confused
with copyrights, copyrights confused with
trademarks, and patents confused with trademarks. They are very different things (and much is written about them and available on the WWW, try the Patent and Trademarks Office for starters).
As for a leak. Doubtful. Maybe they just didn't do a proper search (MS registered their mark all over the place, basketballs is one of the product areas in trademark #78026626). Maybe someone blabbed an in-house development name in public and then, with the blabber having lots of clout, they have to stick with it all the way to making it the logo on top of the box. Or maybe they've got a lot of money in the bank and can dangle some really big carrots in front of the little folks who might get in their way. Or some combination thereof. Pure speculation of course.
However this looks like an co-exisiting trademark owner (marks can co-exist in different markets) attempting to extend their mark from one area to another. MS with their new product are trying to grab the name everywhere (as is their habitual behaviour, grab everything). They collide. Time to get the lawyers out again for rolodexes and bad hair at ten paces on the courthouse steps.
they will just switch to $-box name..
XBOX Technologies of Minnesota (corp) and Florida, per their website, is nothing more than a holding company. It appears that the companies sole business is that of acquisitions and mergers of technology companies. To put it simply they "acquire" a company, hire new management, redesign business processes, train and restaff and then probably do one of two things sell the company or use it as leverage on it's next acquisition.
Unfortunately XBOX Technologies is also listed as a company that's goals are knowledge management, training, discemination of information across a network, wireless, desktop, or web enabled device, listed as a tech support company, media portal, and previously did business in the design of processes for plastics engineering. Is this a company that's really just in search of something to do. It doesn't appear that XBOX Technologies even knows what kind of company it is since it's own website lists it as two different things not to mention the descriptions available from other sites.
This leads me to the other issue. Trademark law is very goods/services oriented. They understand that there are only so many name/letters/combinations out there for companies and therefore trademarks are usually based around a product or service. Trademark disputes typically happen between two business who are in direct competition or when one business has a mark that could be considered famous. XBOX Technologies does not at present produce anything that competes with Microsoft and XBOX has not come into use or enough recognition to be considered famous. (Famous usually means that the mark has been in use by a company for several years and that a wide variety of people associate that mark with the companies product or service). The trademark office should be able to easily allow both marks to co-exist.
Now there is one more problem to throw in. XBOX Technologies is apparently in need of some positive cash flow, they have one major investor and their stock price, although up from it's low of 0.06, is 0.25. Happy coincidence (most likely not a planned coincidence) they have requested the same trademark as a possibly hot new product offered by a company with some pretty deep pockets. So the question comes up as to whether or not they can cash in on this coincidence and garner some much needed cash and possibly some free recognition/press for their ailing company. Positive cash flow and free press draw in investors (which seems to be this companies primary purpose, as an investment).
So now just months before the MS XBOX is to be released discussion begins over trademark issues and who owns what and what it's worth to Microsoft. Microsoft wants the ability to market more than just the box under the XBOX brand and they've invested millions already and so it's pretty late in the game to wait for a court battle, add a hyphen, add MS to the mark, or to drop the name for something else. Cases have been designed, ads readied, printed material, logo's, websites, documentation, millions and millions of dollars. So what's easiest. MS has to make an offer that will keep the issue out of court, whether or not it's an issue that even needs to go to court. Remember this is 'civil' court and things can get pretty protracted, injunctions, motions, etc. possible product delay, negative press for a new product, lawyers fees. You know the drill. So the question now is "How much is it worth to Microsoft?" "How much has MS spent on XBOX to date?" and possibly a secondary question arises "Is what XBOX Technologies is doing ethical?"
"Do not be swept up in the momentum of mediocrity." - anon
Microsoft need only make a small change - a single character - and simultaneously sidestep the trademark problem while building on brand recognition.
Everyone knows a game console should be uncomplicated and straightforward. It should be simple. It should be intuitive. It should be something your mother can use.
It should be called ... X-BOB.
I vote for "XXX-Box"
Here in the netherlands we have Dove chocolate (from Mars Inc.) and Dove soap. Thankfully they don't use the same packaging, but both marks are trademarks. Also we have Sun dishwasher stuff and Sun computers, Linux cleaning services (yeah really! in The Hague, it's a house cleaning agency) and Linux the OS... :)
--
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
The Register has this article where it gives details that 'XBox Technologies' registered the XBox tradmark in March 1999, while Microsoft has been trying to get it since October 1999.
Richy C.
\ rr
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
rr
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
You would have thought that they would have learned their lesson after this. Microsoft didn't originally own the name Internet Explorer. Some hack ISP (long since belly up) owned the trademark.
How about Box.NET?
It's not so unusual for Microsoft to change the name of one of their products, especially an unreleased product. They have the marketing engine to call anything whatever they want. They even have the audacity to rename Java to .NET.
Whoah, I'm so confused! Do I side on the point of pointless, belligerent legislation, or on the side of the Satan-spawned megacorp Microsoft? Is there some legal way they can _both_ lose?
Hear that sound? That's the heads of thousands of Slashdot regulars exploding.
;-)
---