Slashdot Mirror
Owner of the Word Stealth 'Protecting' Rights
popo writes "Just when you thought ownership of intellectual property couldn't get any more absurd: The New York Times is reporting that the word 'Stealth' is being vigorously protected *in all uses* by a man who claims to exclusively own its rights. Not only has he gone head to head with Northrop Grumman, he has pursued it vigorously in the courts and has even managed to shut down "stealthisemail.com" (Steal This Email.com) because the URL coincidentally contains the word "stealth". What's terrifying is that he's gotten as far as he has."
Dodge this, scumbag.
This guy came after our production company Deep Stealth Productions a couple of years ago. It was a thick sheaf of papers, which I dismissed after reading about another small company who had received his form threat. Might have to blow the dust off the thing.
Evil sig is livE.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Argh! My eyes! My retinas are *bleeding*!
...
I wonder if he owns the trademark to utterly craptacular web design?
And some of the words?
Renaissance
Name of a period in history. A common word.
Stradivarius
Surname of a family of violin makers. Can you trademark someone else's name? And really expect them to licence it back from you?
Tirade
Hmm... I feel like going on one right now...
This guy is a total and utter bastard (is that one of his?) and his trademarking of words *and then going after people in unrelated industries* is even less convincing as a business tactic than anything SCO ever came up with.
Why Northrop Grumman caved in, I'll never know. They should have nailed his arse to the court documents and filed it under 'F' for
I see that Diamond still has their line of "Stealth" video cards. http://www.diamondmm.com/stealth.php I'm trying to find what year these cards initially launched.
If I create the trademark "Quropiwla", which is a freely invented word, then I'm going to have a fair chanse demonstrating that anyone using that word does it in the intention of creating confusion with my product -- afterall, what other reason could there be ? It's unlikely someone would end up with that word by chance, and the word doesn't have any meaning as such.
If, on the other hand I register "Enjoyable" in the market for computer-input-devices (say I market joysticks) then it's not that obvious that others using this word does so in order to create confusion with my product. I'd probably still be able to stop other "Enjoyable" joysticks, but I doubt I'd have a case against say the "Enjoyable" computer-monitor.
He doesn't seem to be going after open source software yet. Maybe he figures that we can't afford to pay him off. My Nmap (Stealth) Security Scanner comes up as result #4 in a Google search for "stealth", higher than the upcoming movie and some other sites he has sued/threatened. Yet I haven't received anything. Not that I feel disappointed and left out or anything ...
;)
-Fyodor (who is now resuming the search for SCO products or marketing messages talking about Stealth
I have s aneaky suspicion that he did it to make a point. Unfortunately, if he comes out and says or blatently acts like he did it only to make a point, it won't work anymore. So he files bogus, stupid lawsuits in an attempt to get the law changed.
A popular Polish word translates to English "foamer", for foaming at the mouth. MIght be a worthy addition to the English lexicon for people like these.
"Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity." - Marshall McLuhan
He can still only claim protection for the use of the word in those fields for which he is using the mark. He also has to actually be USING it, not just sitting on it. He doesn't get general protection unless his mark is so widely used that it would likely be confused even if it is in a field that they aren't currently using the mark in.
There ought to be a law (maybe there is) that says this kind of abuse of trademark is illegal - the penalty should be that he loses all rights to the trademark in all fields. People shouldn't have to give in to this kind of "legal extortion" just because it is cheaper to pay him off and stop using it than to fight it when they are in the right.
One way might be to require going through a "trademark dispute arbitration" which can give a preliminary ruling that, e.g. "stealthisemail.com" is not infringing on "Stealth tennis shoes" (or whatever) - if he wants to continue and take it to court, he risks losing the trademark entirely. The process should cost the losing party $500, and no additional damages could be claimed if it is found infringing and they agree to stop using it immediately. That limits the damage to $500, which I think plenty of people would be willing to risk to challenge something like this, and also costs the abuser $500 every time he gets denied.
Stoller came after me back in March 2004 because I was using 'stealth' in my domain name - and still am! I documented it all here:
My Stoller Story. He was going after a hell of a lot of personal websites at the time, trying to scare money out of people. He deserves a good kicking. If it wasn't for the fact he was on the other side of the Atlantic I'd personally have torn him limb from limb.