Slashdot Mirror


Dell Tries To Trademark "Cloud Computing"

Ian Lamont writes "The Industry Standard reports that Dell is trying to trademark the term cloud computing . The phrase entered the tech lexicon years ago, but Dell's application (serial number 77139082) was made in early 2007 to the US Patent and Trademark Office, apparently in connection with data center products and services that it was promoting around that time. A quick search of Google News indicates that Dell itself did not use the term in press releases or discussions with indexed English-language media sources from 1996 to 2006. Dell is not the first company to attempt to trademark this term: The Standard notes that NetCentric, a company that provided 'carrier-class Internet fax technology,' also gave it a shot in the late 1990s, but was rejected."

130 comments

  1. Ah Ha! First Post! by CranberryKing · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    What about just 'cloud'? Can can trademark the sky!

    1. Re:Ah Ha! First Post! by TeknoHog · · Score: 2, Funny

      What about just 'cloud'? Can can trademark the sky!

      I'm afraid Can can is already trademarked.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  2. Michael Dell doesn't know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    the difference between the Meta-Grid and the Hyper-Net!

    -Anonymous Howard

  3. New coin term: trademark troll by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And here I thought that only happened with patents.

    1. Re:New coin term: trademark troll by StreetStealth · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The obviousness of some of the colloquial expressions protected under trademark in the US is sometimes quite surprising. Dish soap marketers, for instance, must be careful in how they describe the effective concentration of their product, because "a little goes a long way(tm)" is a trademark of P&G group.

      --
      Your mind is clear / The things that you fear / Will fade with how much you / Believe what you hear
    2. Re:New coin term: trademark troll by damn_registrars · · Score: 2, Funny

      Be careful where you use that term, or someone could trademark it and sue you for infringement.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    3. Re:New coin term: trademark troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dove trademarked use instructions on its beauty bars "Everyday is Everything"

    4. Re:New coin term: trademark troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      three-peat 'nuff said

    5. Re:New coin term: trademark troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can beat that, actually.

      AOL-Time Warner trademarked (or at least copyrighted) the "Happy Birthday" song. That's why restaurants always make up their own birthday chants when they honor a birthday in a public setting (the dining area).

      Talk about total and utter BS.

    6. Re:New coin term: trademark troll by 5of0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You think that's bad, I passed a Carl's Jr. truck (Hardees to you east of the Mississippi) that said "It's Rude To Stare" next to a picture of their burger, and they had apparently trademarked the phrase, as it had a "TM" after it. And it was to the left of the burger, so it's not like they were trademarking the burger itself.

      I even found a picture of the truck (the TM isn't visible, but it's there, just to the upper-right of the "It's Rude To Stare"). Is there something I'm missing, or is the trademark world just that ridiculous?

      --
      You all have Oo.o and Firefox, so get World Wind.
    7. Re:New coin term: trademark troll by leenks · · Score: 1

      Uh, Windows? :-)

    8. Re:New coin term: trademark troll by Nuskrad · · Score: 1

      Well, that's not quite true. Time Warner do own the copyright, but they're not the ones that copyrighted it. They came to own it through a series of corporate takeovers from the original composer and publisher, the Clayton F Summy Company. It's not like they took an existing song and copyrighted it - you can't do that under copyright law. So it's no more BS than any other copyright claim really (you can make your own mind up on how much that is)

    9. Re:New coin term: trademark troll by slashgrim · · Score: 1

      It doesn't show it here http://www.costcoconnection.com/connection/2007_almanac/?pg=34 but the instruction manual has the word Simplicity(tm)

    10. Re:New coin term: trademark troll by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You have to remember that trademarks are much more limited than, say, patents.

      If you patent something, you have exclusive say in who gets to use that patent for its lifetime. You can license it out at a price you decide, you can market your own product in a monopolistic fashion, or you can just sit on it. You can prevent anyone else from using something described in your patent, even if they invent it independently, even if they only use it privately, even if they're using it for something totally different than what you originally envisioned.

      Trademark, on the other hand, only applies to a specific area of business. For example, you could have an Apple Records and an Apple Computer both trademarking the name "Apple" with no conflict. (The famous serious of lawsuits between the two was over Apple Computer's various forays into music.)

      So yeah, you can trademark "It's Rude To Stare", but you're not going to get in trouble for using it with your vacuum cleaner business, and you're certainly not going to get in trouble for using it in everyday life.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    11. Re:New coin term: trademark troll by badc0ffee · · Score: 1

      That would be "Clod Computting", but I doubt it would get past the marketing weasels.

      --
      1011 1010 1101 1100 0000 1111 1111 1110 1110
  4. Why? by NuKeLiTe · · Score: 1

    Don't know why is so important that term. Sorry Dell, I don't see a point here.

    --
    Recave
  5. Not only sneaky morals, but... by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 4, Funny

    Cloudy thinking by Dell.

    1. Re:Not only sneaky morals, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guess they had their heads up in the clouds on this one, eh?

    2. Re:Not only sneaky morals, but... by EdIII · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No it's just greedy thinking.

      Anytime you try to patent a technical term, you are just deluding yourself. The only reasons for doing so are gaining an edge an a pre-existent market.

      I would think the only exception is where a technical term actually gets created out of word that is already trademarked. Like "Xeroxing a paper". That did use to be a technical term in the past. I am sure there are others.

      The whole reason Dell wants this patent is so that when their competitors attempt to explain their own products in any marketing literature they have to refrain from using a well known technical term. I can even see sales people having to say, "No. It's like cloud computing" since they cannot actually say it is cloud computing.

    3. Re:Not only sneaky morals, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah ... their logic is definitely fuzzy in any case.

    4. Re:Not only sneaky morals, but... by jlarocco · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      I would think the only exception is where a technical term actually gets created out of word that is already trademarked. Like "Xeroxing a paper". That did use to be a technical term in the past. I am sure there are others.

      "Xeroxing" is not, and was never, a technical term. It's the name of a company, Xerox, that makes copy machines.

      The whole reason Dell wants this patent

      Sigh. Did you even RTFS? Dell is trying to *trademark* the term, which is something completely different than a patent. The difference is brought up in almost every single article on /. involving copyrights, trademarks or patents. How can anybody not know the difference by now?

    5. Re:Not only sneaky morals, but... by Ihmhi · · Score: 3, Funny

      Their heads are not that high. Think about 3 feet off of the ground and behind them.

    6. Re:Not only sneaky morals, but... by EdIII · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Xeroxing" is not, and was never, a technical term. It's the name of a company, Xerox, that makes copy machines.

      Uhhhh, I call bullshit on that. I grew up with people calling the act of copying a piece of paper "Xeroxing". Xerox made the first copy machines. It was obvious for people to use the name and create a new word. It IS a technical term. It describes an action that is specifically related to a specific action with a specific technology.

      That is my whole point. They made the first copiers and the people responded by using the corporate name Xerox to describe that very act. It is just as valid as anything else. The longer people use it, the more valid it becomes in fact. Language is constantly evolving and they add new words all the time. It is not up to you or I to determine the validity of a term. The majority made it, therefore it exists.

      Sigh. Did you even RTFS? Dell is trying to *trademark* the term, which is something completely different than a patent. The difference is brought up in almost every single article on /. involving copyrights, trademarks or patents. How can anybody not know the difference by now?

      Take it easy. I know what the difference is between copyright, trademarks, and patents. I misspoke. It happens.

      Instead of poking fun at my mistake, why not address my argument directly? Dell attempting to get a trademark on a well defined technical term is not about protecting anything original to them. It's dirty and will most likely fail. I was pointing out that it is motivated by greed and an attempt to secure an unfair and undeserved advantage over their competitors.

      It would be like Pepsi or Coke trying to trademark "soda". It can't be done, shouldn't be tried, and is pretty silly to anyone considering it. So is cloud computing and Dell.

    7. Re:Not only sneaky morals, but... by jlarocco · · Score: 0, Redundant

      It IS a technical term. It describes an action that is specifically related to a specific action with a specific technology.

      No, it's not. "Xerography" is the technical term. "Xerox" is a meaningless, made up company name.

      Instead of poking fun at my mistake, why not address my argument directly?

      I didn't agree or disagree with your argument because you don't seem to know what you're talking about.

    8. Re:Not only sneaky morals, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree with your argument, because you come across as a TIT

    9. Re:Not only sneaky morals, but... by EdIII · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I didn't agree or disagree with your argument because you don't seem to know what you're talking about.

      I think it's clear that I do know what I am talking about. Once again, you use a distasteful tactic to make a point. You have yet to make any productive comment about Dell's attempt to trademark a well known term, yet still persist in attacking me personally over a disagreement about whether or not a term exists in one of my examples.

      Kind of pointless. Whether you acknowledge it or not, "Xeroxing" is part of our language. You can rant against that all you want. Apparently, instead of discussing it rationally, you just want to lobby personal attacks.

      Bravo.

    10. Re:Not only sneaky morals, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the trademark passes, this will surely thunder some anger

    11. Re:Not only sneaky morals, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhhhh, I call bullshit on that. I grew up with people calling the act of copying a piece of paper "Xeroxing". Xerox made the first copy machines. It was obvious for people to use the name and create a new word. It IS a technical term. It describes an action that is specifically related to a specific action with a specific technology.

      In particular, the name came from the Greek "xeros', meaning dry.

      Up until then, all practical copying involved a wet process. In the 60s, I used to use a Bruning copier. It involved aligning a piece of translucent original and feeding the sandwich into a slot, where the pair was flashed with a very bright light inside a glass cylinder. The original and copy were separated -- the original came back to you and the copy was diverted through a tray containing a developing solution, thence to some webbing which ran it past a dryer.

      Earlier there were "spirit duplicators" which used some kind of special paper typed with a special ribbon. some kind of alcohol-like stuff wet the ink and allowed it to be transferred many times to regular paper.

      I also used an early offset machine maned Multilith. Again. typing onto a special kind of paper produced a forward image. It was mounted on a cylinder where it was first wet with water, then run past an ink source. The oily ink was repelled by the wet part of the mat, but picked up an oil-based ink at a later stage. This small amount of ink was transferred as a reversed image onto a rubber blanket on another cylinder. Finally paper was brought into contact with the rotating rubber blanket for a final positive image. It was called offset printing because the image was offset onto the rubber blanket before getting to paper.

    12. Re:Not only sneaky morals, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's not. "Xerography" is the technical term. "Xerox" is a meaningless, made up company name.

      Word - n.
      a unit of language, consisting of one or more spoken sounds or their written representation, that functions as a principal carrier of meaning.



      If I tell someone to "Xerox this for me" and they come back with a copy of my original paper, then "xerox" is a word. Not to mention plenty of dictionaries include the word xerox, and words exist before they're put in dictionaries, not after. Inclusion in a dictionary is not a requirement for a word, I could make up sounds all day long and call them words, the number of people knowing a word is also not a factor for a word's existence. The only real requirement for a word is a sound/spelling that conveys a persistent meaning. Even that's not correct (ex. "gay" hasn't had a persistent meaning) Language is fluid, there's no central office defining languages, anyone and everyone helps make a language.

    13. Re:Not only sneaky morals, but... by jlarocco · · Score: 1

      Kind of pointless. Whether you acknowledge it or not, "Xeroxing" is part of our language. You can rant against that all you want. Apparently, instead of discussing it rationally, you just want to lobby personal attacks.

      Can you even read? Not once have I said the word "Xerox" isn't "part of our language". As I've tried to explain twice already, the technical term is *NOT* Xerox, it's "xerography". Yes, "Xerox" has become synomomous with "making a copying", but that *doesn't* make it the technical term for the process involved. Both the dictionary and Wikipedia agree with me.

    14. Re:Not only sneaky morals, but... by EdIII · · Score: 1

      Wow. You still cannot attempt a productive argument without at least one insult. I am pretty sure I can read. I think. It would make writing a little harder to be sure.

      Anyways, Xeroxing is still as valid of a technical term as any. A technical term is, "A word that has a specific meaning within a specific field of expertise".

      Well... that being said I would think secretaries making copies comprise a "field" that one could have expertise in. Those secretaries operating in said field, would commonly use the phrase, "Xeroxing". I know. I heard it myself.

      As another poster pointed out, the inclusion of a word in dictionaries (or even Wikipedia), is not required for a word to be valid. Only the consistency of it's use. Well, "Xeroxing" is pretty darn consistent in it's use. I know it, and I think any other reader of this post would instantly recognize it as well. Your argument about whether it could qualify as a technical term is the only productive discourse happening here, and I just gave my argument why I think it IS a technical term.

      Now if you want to argue about the validity of words not in dictionaries I ask you to consider, "Fo Shizzle my Nizzle". I don't think that is in a dictionary, but most people know *exactly* what it means. I would argue that it is highly consistent in it's use.

      So do I forgive you for your constant derogatory insults in your attempt to have a rational conversation with me? Fo Shizzle My Nizzle :)

    15. Re:Not only sneaky morals, but... by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Sorry,but I have to agree here. As someone who grew up in the '70s,you NEVER copied anything,you Xeroxed it. Just like today nobody searches the web for anything,they Google it. I guarantee you if Google dies out in 5 years folks will still say "just Google it". Hell,I say "just Google it" and I use Yahoo search. But I can't ever remember anyone saying they needed to have something copied,they needed it Xeroxed. That was just they way it was,right along with wood grain on everything.

      So whether you believe it or not,as someone who lived it and used that phrase more times than I can count,I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that it didn't matter who made the copier because we Xeroxed everything.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    16. Re:Not only sneaky morals, but... by EdIII · · Score: 1

      I think he is arguing a point to death even though it clearly is a valid technical term. He wants xerography to be the dominant and only recognized technical term for the process, but Xeroxing is just as valid.

      You don't have to have grown up in the 70's either. I was born in the late 70's, and it was still Xeroxing well into the late 80's.

      You've supported my point quite well though. It never mattered what company name was on the copier, you made a Xerox. That was my whole point about how a technical term could also be a trademark in the first place.

    17. Re:Not only sneaky morals, but... by Aereus · · Score: 1

      Where I live, when you blow your nose you use a kleenex. When you want to cover leftovers, you use saran wrap. Yet Kleenex is just a brand of tissue paper, and Saran Wrap is just a brand of plastic wrap, but both products are so widespread, that the brand name is used to describe a generic product.

    18. Re:Not only sneaky morals, but... by ContractualObligatio · · Score: 1

      I think you make some interesting points. I disagree, but enjoyed thinking about why because it's a classic subject. Forgive the length, just enjoying some mental exercise here...

      It describes an action that is specifically related to a specific action with a specific technology. That is my whole point.

      First, this is a questionable assertion. On what basis can you say that people don't use "Xerox" if they are not in fact using traditional photocopying to copy their piece of paper? I would know exactly what someone meant if they said they were Xeroxing something, even if they were in fact scanning something.

      But in any case, it doesn't matter. You could apply the same argument to Hoovering and Googling, if it were valid. There is nothing wrong with a colloquialism having a precise definition, in fact it's rather desirable. Colloquial use of a trademark does not a technical term make, however. The fact that something enters the popular lexicon does not make it a technical term. It should in some form be formally recognised, not simply widely used. A simple thought experiment: if you asked a company's representative what their product did, and the best they came up with was their own company's name, you'd probably want to get past the marketing bullshit and ask for someone capable of using what might be described as technical terminology. If someone said, "it's a technical term because I'm talking about a technical thing", I would immediately write that person off for having no credibility whatsoever.

      In the case of Xerox, the technical term is electrophotography. Look up the original patent if you like.

      The longer people use it, the more valid it becomes in fact.

      No. This completely misrepresents the principle involved here, namely the difference between language generally and technical vocabularies. No matter how many people continue to use Xerox as a verb, no matter for how long, it will not cease to be a trademark (assuming Xerox continue to renew it) and it will not therefore become a technical term. Industry simply does not accept a competitor's trademark as the formal definition of what they do, and the inventor is usually quite happy with this because in the public's mind their own invention is the definition of the new thing. As a corollary, a technical term does not need popular usage to be recognised or documented as such. And as yet a further twist, while technical terms may indeed evolve over time, it is not the viewpoint of the general public that decides this.

      It is not up to you or I to determine the validity of a term. The majority made it, therefore it exists.

      This is not the case. There are any number of formal bodies and institutions around the world that do not conduct referendums on technical matters. Personally, I love democracy but can't stand to hear what is effectively groupthink as a way of deciding technical subjects. The majority don't understand the subject in question; why defer to them?

      I know what the difference is between copyright, trademarks, and patents.

      Your next step is to understand what technical terminology is. Try wikipedia...

      To be fair, you could argue Xerox is so closely bound to electrophotography that they are interchangeableable, but there's a number of problems with this:

      • Even then, the technical term becomes xerography.
      • It is invalid to use exceptional cases to argue a general one.
      • I still struggle to believe that "Xeroxing" is part of the specialised vocabulary in that field, as comparable to the general public.
      • The timeline is difficult, namely that Xerox was a trademark years before it became perceived by many as a technical term. Technical terminology is used to have precise conversations, which is difficult if you can be diverted by this kind of discussion. If Xeroxing is a technical term, it's a really bad one to use in
    19. Re:Not only sneaky morals, but... by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't "copying" or "duplicating" be the technical term? "Xeroxing" is just a variant of a marketing term.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    20. Re:Not only sneaky morals, but... by YttriumOxide · · Score: 1

      I agree with you, however would just like to point out three things:
      1) Using "Xerox" as a verb never really happened outside the US - in other English speaking countries, people generally just say "copy" or "photocopy".
      2) Not directed at you personally, but someone else said that Xerox invented photocopiers - no, they didn't, although they did introduce the first "office" photocopiers.
      3) (and my main point in replying) In ENGLISH there is no central office defining the language. That's not actually true for all languages...

      --
      My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
      Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
    21. Re:Not only sneaky morals, but... by YttriumOxide · · Score: 1

      There's quite a few, and it generally depends on where you're from. Where I grew up, if you said "Saran wrap", people would stare at you blankly. You'd have to say "Glad Wrap"

      Others of course include the aforementioned by others Hoover and Xerox, as well as Post It Note, Nescafe, Band Aid, Coke (the drink), Bic, Milo, PalmPilot (now obsolete almost everywhere AFAIK), Aspirin, Google, and others.

      --
      My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
      Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
    22. Re:Not only sneaky morals, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      by your logic, "va-jay-jay" is a technical term. You lost. Get over it.

    23. Re:Not only sneaky morals, but... by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      "Xeroxing", much like "Fo Shizzle My Nizzle" [do you really know exactly what it means?] is slang.

      1. informal language consisting of words and expressions that are not considered appropriate for formal occasions; often vituperative or vulgar; "their speech was full of slang expressions"
      2. a characteristic language of a particular group (as among thieves); "they don't speak our lingo" [syn: cant, jargon, lingo, argot, patois, vernacular]
      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    24. Re:Not only sneaky morals, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, your argument for why Xerox wasn't a trademark first is very compelling, "I grew up with people calling the act of copying a piece of paper 'Xeroxing'." Damn, I wish I could remember more from my childhood so I could discredit the origin of the word too.

      So when you blow your nose do you grab a Kleenex or a facial tissue? I can't believe the people at IWishThereWasACommonTermForFacialTissue went and put a trademark on Kleenex, those greedy bastards!

      Your post is the Cadillac of posts so why shouldn't we believe you. Man, there's another one...how dare you, GM, trademark a term!

      I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the basis of your argument but please don't make assumptions about things because you "remembered as a kid."

    25. Re:Not only sneaky morals, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The difference is that the Xerox company came first- photocopying a piece of paper came to be called xeroxing BECAUSE Xerox made the machine that did it. Same with Google and searching.

      To xerox may have turned into a technical term, but it didn't start out that way. And that is the point. And that is why "cloud computing" is different- it was a technical term before Dell got their hands on it.

    26. Re:Not only sneaky morals, but... by aricusmaximus · · Score: 1

      "Xeroxing" is not, and was never, a technical term. It's the name of a company, Xerox, that makes copy machines.

      Uhhhh, I call bullshit on that. I grew up with people calling the act of copying a piece of paper "Xeroxing". Xerox made the first copy machines. It was obvious for people to use the name and create a new word. It IS a technical term. It describes an action that is specifically related to a specific action with a specific technology.

      That is my whole point. They made the first copiers and the people responded by using the corporate name Xerox to describe that very act. It is just as valid as anything else. The longer people use it, the more valid it becomes in fact. Language is constantly evolving and they add new words all the time. It is not up to you or I to determine the validity of a term. The majority made it, therefore it exists.

      Disclaimer: IANAL, and this should not be construed as legal advice.

      Edlll,

      Cloud computing aside, your comments about Xerox photocopying are wrong and misleading. In the future, please make sure to provide the standard IANAL disclaimer as you are clearly without clue about trademark law.

      No one sells Xerox photocopiers but Xerox; Cannon, Ricoh, Sharp sell photocopiers. Kinkos provides photocopy services, not "xeroxing" services.

      Similarly, no one but Kleenex sells Kleenex brand facial tissues and you and I brush our teeth with toothpaste and do not "Crest" them. In the South, all sodas are colloquially called "coke" (e.g. "I'll have an orange coke") -- however, no one actually sells Coke(tm) brand products -- including colas -- but the Coca Cola Company.

      Should you advertise that your photocopier is a "Xeroxing" machine or provide a professional "Xeroxing" service, Xerox has the legal right (and obligation) to defend the violation of its trademark, and you can and would get sued for trademark infringement.

    27. Re:Not only sneaky morals, but... by EdIII · · Score: 1

      Cloud computing aside, your comments about Xerox photocopying are wrong and misleading. In the future, please make sure to provide the standard IANAL disclaimer as you are clearly without clue about trademark law.

      I am a little unsure as to what you thought I was saying. It's not wrong. There is an argument about whether or not Xeroxing is a valid technical term of which on poster has wrote a very interesting argument against it. I was not making any claims for or against Xerox's trademarks. I did not give any legal advice about the use of such trademarks, or propose any specific actions by anyone either. So I am left confused by just what it is you thought I was advocating.

      Should you advertise that your photocopier is a "Xeroxing" machine or provide a professional "Xeroxing" service, Xerox has the legal right (and obligation) to defend the violation of its trademark, and you can and would get sued for trademark infringement.

      That was my whole point. Growing up, I heard plenty of staff say "Xeroxing" regardless of what company manufactured the device doing the copying. Even though it became part of popular speech, companies other than Xerox would be prevented in using it in any advertisements or marketing/sales material.

      I gave Xerox as an example of a term (I still think technical) that got created out of trademarked name. Cloud Computing and Dell is not the same. There will be no point in the future in which "Dellputing" is going to refer to Cloud Computing. So Xerox is one of the very few exceptions in which a company so completely dominates a service that there very name becomes synonymous with the service.

      I don't know what you thought we disagreed on, but apparently we are not in disagreement at all.

    28. Re:Not only sneaky morals, but... by EdIII · · Score: 1

      I think you make some interesting points. I disagree, but enjoyed thinking about why because it's a classic subject. Forgive the length, just enjoying some mental exercise here...

      I'm just happy that somebody has written a very well thought out response. I was just making an example of a situation in which a trademarked name evolved into a verb that described the very service the company was offering. Interesting how many people had something to say about just that.

      It describes an action that is specifically related to a specific action with a specific technology. That is my whole point.

      First, this is a questionable assertion. On what basis can you say that people don't use "Xerox" if they are not in fact using traditional photocopying to copy their piece of paper? I would know exactly what someone meant if they said they were Xeroxing something, even if they were in fact scanning something.

      With respect, I don't think it's a questionable assertion. I am not saying that Xeroxing must cover all acts of duplication. I merely state that the word itself does describe an action that is related to specific technology. Xeroxing is making a copy of a piece of paper. It is not the only way to do it. I think we may have a disagreement on language, but I will get to that.

      Your next step is to understand what technical terminology is

      No, I understand it. I just disagree with it, or at least some of your restrictions on it.

      ...Colloquial use of a trademark does not a technical term make...

      This completely misrepresents the principle involved here, namely the difference between language generally and technical vocabularies

      And as yet a further twist, while technical terms may indeed evolve over time, it is not the viewpoint of the general public that decides this

      There are any number of formal bodies and institutions around the world that do not conduct referendums on technical matters. Personally, I love democracy but can't stand to hear what is effectively groupthink as a way of deciding technical subjects. The majority don't understand the subject in question; why defer to them?

      Now, I just have to disagree with you. Not that you are not correct and represent the truth. I think that you are, and that certain groups of people and institutions do create technical terms. I disagree with you how your assertions restrict the general use of the words technology and technical. I entirely understand where you are coming from. That only those active in formal bodies and institutions get to decide what words become part of their own language to precisely convey ideas and concepts between members of their own group. I agree, that if I was speaking with an engineer, that the conversation would be better served by using the word Xerography. However, I was not speaking about a single group of people responsible for the engineering behind the technology. We are talking about trademarks here, which apply to the general public.

      Now, I am more democratic about language. My favorite definition for technology is, "The specific methods, materials, and devices used to solve practical problems". I like to simplify that to, "Knowledge that gives rise to ability". In this case, there is a word that is used very consistently that clearly refers to a specific method using a specific device to solve a practical problem. Therefore, I would call it a technical term.

      Now I understand where you are coming from. You object to the declaration that it is a technical term, even though it may be used consistently by the general public as a term that applies to a very technical action. You also state that the general public, or democracy, has no participation in deciding what technica

    29. Re:Not only sneaky morals, but... by Macthorpe · · Score: 1

      Really interesting stuff.

      I might go google it and see what I can find.

      --
      "It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
    30. Re:Not only sneaky morals, but... by ContractualObligatio · · Score: 1

      No, I understand it. I just disagree with it, or at least some of your restrictions on it.

      Provide some evidence of your understanding beyond your own definition. I based my argument on an external source (Wikipedia, as democratic a source as they come):

      Technical terminology is the specialized vocabulary of a field. These terms have specific definitions within the field, which is not necessarily the same as their meaning in common use. Jargon is similar, but more informal in definition and use, while legal terms of art or words of art have meanings that are strictly defined by law.

      Rather than find an independent check against your opinion, you go through convoluted logic to provide your own definition. You claim you are being democractic, but this is more indicative of an ego motivated argument. For instance, I'd be perfectly happy with anyone who used Xeroxing to describe how they use their desktop scanner and printer, but your viewpoint sounds rather pretentious to me:

      In this case, there is a word that is used very consistently that clearly refers to a specific method using a specific device to solve a practical problem.

      I mean, seriously? It can't just be for someone who had one copy of something, but wanted ten and knew there was a gadget of unknown wizardry on the second floor that could help? Or used by the guy with the desktop setup? Your claim to be speaking for the general public, against the scientists and engineers who try to "own" words, rings rather hollow. I'm not a scientist or an engineer - I work in sales and marketing. I have no need to refer to any word I use as technical terminology, unless I have need to do so, in which case I would verify the word rather than invent an argument to justify my position. My ego doesn't need it, and I've no desire to be disrespectful of those use careers make proper use of it.

  6. Where was this article in July? by LostCluster · · Score: 5, Informative

    The first comment to the article links to the USPTO page for the applicatoin where the status shows that the opposition period went by without anybody noticing, so the mark is one step closer to being validated. It appears only the dependable USPTO is left to block this thing on its own.

    1. Re:Where was this article in July? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      USPTO, dependable? What kind of wierd alternate dimension have I fallen into?

    2. Re:Where was this article in July? by LostCluster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Attempted humor in an otherwise serious post... not a good idea on /. I guess.

    3. Re:Where was this article in July? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      whoosh.

  7. Cloud opportunity by darealpat · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I was struck by the comment at the end of the article by a trademark attorney that no-one had opposed it when it was initially published. I think that points to a fundamental flaw in the process: who knows of or sees these things in order to oppose them?

    Perhaps that is the clouded thinking that permeates the USPTO and the tech entities that use them to further their cause.

    --
    For every present, there is a past
    1. Re:Cloud opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you mean youâ(TM)ve never been to Alpha Centauri? Oh for heaven sake mankind itâ(TM)s only four light years away you know! Iâ(TM)m sorry but if you canâ(TM)t be bothered to take an interest in local affairs thatâ(TM)s your own regard. Energise the demolition beams! God I donâ(TM)t knowâ¦apathetic bloody planet, Iâ(TM)ve no sympathy at allâ¦

    2. Re:Cloud opportunity by Steneub · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of Hitchhiker's Guide and the Vogons. "It was clearly posted in public! It's not our fault you didn't do anything."

  8. USPTO record by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here is the U.S. Patent and Trademark listing: CLOUD COMPUTING

  9. I have a great idea for a new patent! by NoobixCube · · Score: 3, Funny

    A device for generating heat based on the constricted flow of subatomic particles through metallic pathways, embedded in a fabric base for easy folding and heat distribution! I call it an "electric blanket" :)

    --
    Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
    1. Re:I have a great idea for a new patent! by drspliff · · Score: 1

      Although if you could stretch the definition of fabric to say.. silicone you've pretty much patented every IC on the planet.

    2. Re:I have a great idea for a new patent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's hilarious. Now tell the one about patenting breathing.

  10. Beating a dead horse but... by Yold · · Score: 1, Insightful

    When the f*** is someone going to take the initiative, like Al Gore did in creating the internet, to reform the U.S. patent protocol. If it is an algorithm, that is a legitimate patent. There are certain classes of patents, especially technology ones referring to a design methodology, that should not be patented.

    All this is going to do is provide ammunition for frivolous lawsuits, and there are plenty of those already with ambulance chasers. Its just a sickening waste of public funds.

  11. wtf?? by CranberryKing · · Score: 2, Funny

    ..like Al Gore did in creating the internet.

    Wait, I thought AOL created the Internet.

    1. Re:wtf?? by MrMage · · Score: 3, Funny

      If Al Gore or AOL created the internet, then why does every internet address begin with www? Bush clearly left his mark on the tubes.

    2. Re:wtf?? by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      If Al Gore or AOL created the internet, then why does every internet address begin with www? Bush clearly left his mark on the tubes.

      there are marks on the tubes?!

      no wonder my packets aren't making it back from blizzard's servers.. they're probably still stuck in the scratches!

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    3. Re:wtf?? by eln · · Score: 1

      No, AOL killed the Internet.

  12. Why not? by overshoot · · Score: 1

    Microsoft trademarked "windows."

    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
    1. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Microsoft: Windows, Word, Excel.
      Apple: Pages, Numbers, Safari.

    2. Re:Why not? by urcreepyneighbor · · Score: 3, Informative

      Microsoft trademarked "windows."

      Which only applies to operating systems, computers and related crap. It does not cover the use of the word for sheets of glass.

      Trademark law seems a little less insane than copyright. At least, to a layman.

      --
      "The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
    3. Re:Why not? by PitaBred · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Except that the "window" was a concept that was known to many OS's before Microsoft got ahold of it. Same case here with Cloud Computing. You should not be able to trademark a name of a generic concept or practice.

    4. Re:Why not? by urcreepyneighbor · · Score: 1

      Except that the "window" was a concept that was known to many OS's before Microsoft got ahold of it.

      Let's not confuse patents and trademarks.

      Same case here with Cloud Computing.

      I don't know what the situation with Cloud Computing is. The little I know makes me want to avoid the entire mess. So, I can't really comment.

      You should not be able to trademark a name of a generic concept or practice.

      Eh. This is getting philosophical.

      --
      "The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
    5. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it wasn't the name of a product, nor an indicator of the source of any product, nor a wavy-flag logo with some colored lites.

      A computer "window" and Microsoft Windows are not at all the same.

    6. Re:Why not? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why not? So you can't call your operating system "Windows." You are perfectly free to refer to the square things in your OS as windows. And every GUI OS I know of does so.

      It's a stupid name anyway.

    7. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually Microsoft did not trademark "Windows".
      They tried to, but got turned down multiple times.

      They only succeeded in trademarking "Microsoft Windows".
      (Don't remember how many times they had to submit that one till some idiot rubber stamped it.)

    8. Re:Why not? by Deanalator · · Score: 1

      Still, Lindows got sued.

    9. Re:Why not? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Should they not have? That was a pretty obvious attempt to associate their OS with the one called "Windows."

    10. Re:Why not? by samj · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, but there wasn't already hundreds of vendors selling products and services around these terms when they were trademarked...

    11. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know what the situation with Cloud Computing is. The little I know makes me want to avoid the entire mess. So, I can't really comment.

      Ok so do yourself a favour and RTFM.

    12. Re:Why not? by urcreepyneighbor · · Score: 1

      The little I know makes me want to avoid the entire mess.

      Ok so do yourself a favour and RTFM.

      Wikipedia entry = "The little I know". ;)

      --
      "The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
    13. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the fact that MS were the plaintiff and had to settle with Lindows for $20m based on worries they'd lose the Windows trademark, I'd call it one of the least successful pieces of litigation in history.

  13. Anybody by dereference · · Score: 3, Informative

    who knows of or sees these things in order to oppose them?

    Anybody. The marks are published weekly for opposition. The latest few are available as PDF downloads free of charge; follow the link and you can even subscribe to the paper copy (for merely $1,536/year).

    1. Re:Anybody by samj · · Score: 1

      Ok, excuse me while I spend my Sunday afternoon (and allocate a day every week from now until the end of time) downloading this week's 154.2Mb Trademark Official Gazette and then going to find equivalents in all the other jurisdictions I care about (which probably means the 80 members of the Madrid system, given a grant in any of them can be ratcheted up to a 'global' trademark within 6 months).

      Either the USPTO has to do their job or the community has to do it for them - in the latter case I would suggest that we need something like feeds of the new applications and something like the Wikipedia New Pages patrol. Good luck with that...

  14. Too bad by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Maybe if Dell patented it we could go back to calling servers "servers."

    1. Re:Too bad by maackey · · Score: 1

      While they're at it, they might as well trademark Web 2.0

  15. The Black Cloud by zazenation · · Score: 1

    This reminds me of the Fred Hoyle SF classic where an intelligent cloud from interstellar space surrounds the sun and only a few scientists are able to communicate with it. They were able to use the cloud to thwart others on earth from communicating with it. Brings interesting parallels to monopolies, selfishness and greed to mind.

  16. But... How did this happen? by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    I like to speculate about the social background of how these things happen. Here is my guess:

    Dell top executives were sitting around during a long lunch smoking cigarettes and drinking martinis. One of them said, "We've gotten a lot of free bad publicity in the past, but now that Ed Foster has very unfortunately and sadly died, how will we get bad press in the future?

    They smoke their cigarettes for a while in silence while staring at a good-looking waitress, until one of them says, "I know. We will get Dell on the front page of Slashdot by trademarking a commonly used term!"

    Another says, "I don't like that idea very much, but since we only get a new idea about once a year, let's do it."

    And that's how it happened. Or maybe not. I would love to know the true story, which I think would be more interesting than this fictional one.

    1. Re:But... How did this happen? by EdIII · · Score: 1

      which I think would be more interesting than this fictional one

      I don't know. Write some more about the good looking waitress. What kind of martini was it? Mix up a murder investigation or something. I think I would stick to the good looking waitress.

      Something like, ".. and the waitress came over to the table. She was tall and had long blond hair. She took a long puff off her cigarette which gave me time to look her up and down. She had tits so big you could see her coming around the corner and still have time to comb your hair...."

  17. the thing I find most objectionable about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    is Dell's new TV ad where "Steve" bounces up and down on his bed with an air guitar singing,

    Hey! (hey)
    Dude! (dude)
    Get Off-a Mah Cloud

  18. I say let them have it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... if it means nobody else will be able to say "cloud computing" anymore I am all for it. Now it someone would have been able to trademark Web 2.0 life would be good.

    1. Re:I say let them have it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and twitter
      and blog(osphere)
      and countless others

    2. Re:I say let them have it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... if it means nobody else will be able to say "cloud computing" anymore I am all for it. Now it someone would have been able to trademark Web 2.0 life would be good.

      Hey, anyone up for trademarking "The Year of the Linux Desktop(TM)"?

    3. Re:I say let them have it... by jibjibjib · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately the year of the Linux desktop will also be the year of the laptop.

    4. Re:I say let them have it... by MadFarmAnimalz · · Score: 1
      Are you also okay with someone patenting "object oriented", "client/server", and "clustering"? Because they are all expressions used to refer to specific architectures.

      I know some terms get overused, but letting people patent them isn't the best way to combat hype.

      --
      Blearf. Blearf, I say.
  19. Who else is using it? by LostCluster · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "Cloud computing" is one of those "next big thing" products here on slashdot, but who's actually using the term in their marketing? Plenty of people are selling "cloud" applications, but nobody's calling it that as most people think of "the cloud" as untrustworthy.

    Is there an actual case of somebody like Amzaon's s3 actually calling themselves "cloud computing"?

    1. Re:Who else is using it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      s3 is Amazon's storage service. EC2 or "elastic cloud computing" is what you seem to have not heard of. And yeah, they use it on the regular in their marketing.

    2. Re:Who else is using it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amazon EC2

      Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud (Amazon EC2) is a web service that provides resizable compute capacity in the cloud. It is designed to make web-scale computing easier for developers.

    3. Re:Who else is using it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ex-Netscape founder Mark Andressen launched LoudCloud, an IT managed services provider, in 1999. The company later shifted their focus and was renamed Opsware; a couple years ago it was acquired by HP.

    4. Re:Who else is using it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      well, if Dell manages to trademark "Cloud Computing(TM)", then we could use other terms such as condensed-vapor-in-the-atmosphere computing or smoke computing like the symbol usually used for the cloud in the diagram. Do they sound trustworth enough?

    5. Re:Who else is using it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It refers to a general computing concept. On that basis alone, and the now accepted generic usage of the term, it should be summarily rejected as a trademark.

    6. Re:Who else is using it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, trying to sell "cloud computing" belongs right up there with trying to sell a vinegar-based salad topping as "douchebag dressing".

    7. Re:Who else is using it? by abshnasko · · Score: 1
    8. Re:Who else is using it? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Apple does with Mobile Me. Amazon has a product called "Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud". Now THERE'S a stupid name!

    9. Re:Who else is using it? by zerocool^ · · Score: 1

      http://www.mosso.com/cluster.jsp

      Mosso is owned by Rackspace, and they've been using the term for a while.

      (disclaimer: I work for Rackspace).

      --
      sig?
    10. Re:Who else is using it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://joyent.com/

    11. Re:Who else is using it? by Lord+Lode · · Score: 1

      I can't help it, but "cloud computing" gives me images of happy people walking on the clouds and dancing, and also doing some computing while at it :)

    12. Re:Who else is using it? by kchrist · · Score: 1

      Joyent has been using the term for quite a while now.

    13. Re:Who else is using it? by macelmorph · · Score: 1

      Mor.ph [http://www.mor.ph] uses it. We refer to our platform as cloud-based.

  20. Fired by johndmartiniii · · Score: 2, Funny

    Didn't some asshole try to trademark "You're fired" a few years ago. Sheesh.

    --
    If you don't know what you're doing, you can't make mistakes.
    1. Re:Fired by Z34107 · · Score: 1

      If he did, unemployment might have been better.

      Nyoro~n

      --
      DATABASE WOW WOW
    2. Re:Fired by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't some asshole try to trademark "You're fired" a few years ago. Sheesh.

      I congratulate you on the excellent use of the epithet.

      The asshole in question is Donald Trump. He had his lawyers start sending C&Ds to a small ceramics studio somewhere down south. The woman who ran the place, where students could learn ceramic techniqies and have access to kilns, etc., had named her shop "You're Fired" years before the bewigged dickhead used it for his shabby show. I don't know where his eventual lawsuit ended up.

      However, I do know that, many years back, a woman opened a children's clothing store in Marin County, California, and named it Grammy Goose. Laura Scudder's corp C&Ded her ass, but finally backed off when there was a massive grassroots boycott of all LS products. They got lots of bux in Marin and LS didn't relish the idea of very likely not ever selling another Granny Goose potato chip up there.

  21. I've got an idea by ILuvRamen · · Score: 1

    Maybe they'll have better luck if they actually make a water vapor cloud that can do calculations. But of course then the patent people would just say "WTF, I ordered your new cloud and I'm locked out of local disk management" and refuse them the patent anyway.

    --
    Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
    1. Re:I've got an idea by Datamonstar · · Score: 1

      If I had one of those kind of cloud computers, I could say "I made it rain" and still remain a geek.

      --
      The eternal struggle of good vs. evil begins within one's self.
  22. So where is Dell's cloud now? by deanston · · Score: 1

    I don't see Dell selling or providing any service or product close to Amazon or Google. Did they think they'll grab the buzzword first and then come up with some idea of a product? Is this the typical Dell way of doing business and product development? Were they thinking of printing cool cloud patterns and sky color on their next laptop line? You'd think with their brand recognition and product reach, Dell would be setting itself up as THE alternative to Windows and Mac with out-of-the-box Linux. There lies the opportunity to be a dedicated hardware manufacturer partner that an Ubuntu or Suse/CentOS needs to make serious inroad into the corporate and government offices. No, Dell rather choose Windows because it is an easy sell, just like everything else they do, take the cheap road.

  23. Why "cloud computing", just isn't that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...special, brings up images of warm spring days and cute fluffy bunny rabbits and various chick flick scenes and [voice="George Carlin"] BULLLLLL SHIT! Get that "sensitive" guy out of the damn room! Who wants a "cloud" computer, give me a category 10 hurricane computer with some richtor 25 earthquake RAM! And Krakatoa I/O!

    1. Re:Why "cloud computing", just isn't that... by Finsterwald+P+Ogleth · · Score: 1

      So....what kind of technology would be included in "Pyroclastic Cloud Computing?

  24. Dell's next commercial by j01123 · · Score: 1

    "Dude, you're getting some computing resources allocated for you in the cloud!"

  25. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    If I read the USPTO site correctly on July 8th Dell was granted an Allowance to use the term "cloud computing" so they're not "trying" to trademark it, they actually did. And are actually using it in promotional materials. See, http://www.dell.com/cloudcomputing.

  26. Dell RIAA by Hackerlish · · Score: 1

    If this name grab fails, they could always use 'Crippled Audio Computing' in honor of their secret deal with the RIAA. http://mobile.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/07/11/0128203

  27. The trademark has been allowed. by Animats · · Score: 4, Informative

    A Notice of Allowance was issued on July 8. Examination is over. Nobody objected during the objection period. So Dell owns "CLOUD COMPUTING" as a trademark. The remaining processing is just paperwork - publication in the Official Gazette, and printing and mailing the trademark certificate to Dell.

  28. Great!!! by Dynedain · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now could someone please trademark Web 2.0 so we won't have to hear that stupid buzzword either?

    --
    I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
  29. Nobody said it yet: FUCK DELL by ZeekWatson · · Score: 1

    There I said it!

  30. The early cloud by YourExperiment · · Score: 1

    Dell itself did not use the term in press releases or discussions with indexed English-language media sources from 1996 to 2006

    Why were they using the term prior to 1996, and why did they suddenly stop?

  31. Re: by rdebath · · Score: 1

    Oh wow! Pyroclastic computing! I want!

  32. Dude! by StarfishOne · · Score: 1

    Dude, you're getting a Cloud!

    Would that be the same as.. vaporware?!? :D

  33. X marks the spot by overshoot · · Score: 1

    Which only applies to operating systems [uspto.gov], computers [uspto.gov] and related crap [uspto.gov]. It does not cover the use of the word for sheets of glass.

    ... and "X Windows," which predates Microsoft's trademark application by more than a decade.

    And, yes, I know that's not the official name of the X windowing system -- but it's common usage, and now illegal.

    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
  34. Not everyone says "Xeroxing" by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

    Just to throw a little more oil onto the fire of this argument, I'll point out that while "Xerox" may have become a generic verb in the US (and possibly other countries), I've *never* heard it used in the UK.

    Here everyone says "photocopy" or "photocopying", even in everyday conversation. I've heard it said that this is because Xerox was never that big here, and that the first copiers to break the mass market were manufactured by their rivals. Not that we "Canon" or "Brother" a document either, though.

    FWIW, people here talk about a "Hoover" and doing the "hoovering" when they refer to vacuum cleaners. Yet I've heard that this isn't common usage in the US, despite Hoover being an American company. Anyway, I remember finding it unusual when my parents bought a Hoover washing machine, because I'd always associated the name with vacuum cleaners (and I *was* about to say "...associated the name with hoovers"!)

    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  35. Nothing new: Dell has often been adversarial. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    My guess is that you intended to joke, but MetaGrid and HyperNet have already been trademarked. Quote: "GridNet(tm) includes, but is not necessarily limited to, two moieties, The MetaGrid(tm) and The HyperNet(tm)."

    Dell has often been adversarial. Here are some recent stories about ways Dell has treated customers poorly:

    For example, Dell notebook turns into a Bad Buy. Quote: "... wonder if company executives just don't care anymore what people think of Dell support." Another quote from the same story: "Every contact number I got took me to an overseas call center, and after finally getting past the ridiculous voice systems, when I got a live person and asked for corporate contact info (email or phone) for corporate, I was either disconnected or put on hold for a manager -- who never picked up and I was disconnected after five minutes."

    Here's a quote from No Spare Processors for Dell Server: "At what point does a manufacturer's obligation to provide spare parts for a system cease? Consider the experience of one reader who recently found he could not get a processor for a two-year-old Dell server, a system still covered by a Dell same-day onsite service contract."

    Another quote from College Kid Learns Lesson About Dell's Warranty: "Maybe I've been lucky, but in 70 years I've never dealt with a worse company than Dell."

  36. Swell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hate trendy buzzwords.

  37. Trademarks vs. colloquialisms by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1

    No matter how many people continue to use Xerox as a verb, no matter for how long, it will not cease to be a trademark (assuming Xerox continue to renew it)

    Depends on jurisdiction. AFAIK your statement is correct for Europe but not for the US, where "enough" colloquial use can invalidate a trademark.

    Back on topic:
    Dell tries to hijack an already established term, while Xerox actually created a new class of product and the term was derived from that. So one can argue that Xerox deserve their trademark, while Dell is simply trying to monopolize established language and should fail.

    --
    C - the footgun of programming languages
  38. Beat me to it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The notice was posted at the office, sir."
    "Your âofficeâ(TM) was in a basement. I had to look all over the building just to find it."
    "Thatâ(TM)s where the office is located!"
    "It was dark."
    "The lights were out!"
    "So were the stairs."
    "But still, you found the notice, sir?"
    "Oh, yes. It was quite âclearlyâ(TM) posted in a locked filing cabinet in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying âBeware of the leopard.â(TM)"

  39. Apple leads the way. by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    And here I thought that only happened with patents.

    As usual, Apple made pioneering efforts in the industry by trying to multi-touch out from under Jeff Han, and now Dell is trying to play catch-up.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)