Slashdot Mirror
Sparc Sends SparkFun Electronics C&D Letter
moogied writes "SparkFun.com, a electronics component provider, has been sent a cease and desist letter by Sparc in response to the lengthy trademark process that SparkFun is participating in. The letter states 'Because the dominant portion of the SparkFun mark, namely, SPARK, is phonetically identical and nearly visually identical to SI's SPARC mark, and because it is used in connection with identical goods, we believe confusion is likely to occur among the relevant purchasing group.' SparkFun.com has provided the entire contents of the letter, with a breakdown of points it feels are most relevant."
guess who won't be buying any more sparc servers?
In the twisted world of intellectual property. Seems very similar to this ridiculous case involving a teapot.
I love spark-fun. I bought cheap GPS modules from them. They have a nack for bulk-buying cool stuff that inventors need. They also respond to criticism and suggestions. Heck, I should work for them, don't you think?
I could buy some of the parts from SparkFun, and perhaps some of the PCBs. But that's where the "identical goods" argument ends. Has Sparc ever done a teardown of a Wii controller with analysis of the components? Do they sell solder stations? Is Sparc even around anymore? I must've forgotten about them.
I am not a crackpot.
...slashdot readers are bringing SparkFun.com to it's knees as we speak.
Stand back, SPARC, we'll take care of this!
THL phish sticks
Come on, now. They have SPARK in the name; they're an electronics company. The name is a playful moniker and nobody would ever confuse them with Sparc.
When I was in the USAF they called the electricians "spark chasers". ANY electronics company should be able to have "spark" in their name. For Sun to lay claim to a common word that describes the first thing anybody thinks of when they think of electricity (when Sin's is spelled differently) is ludicrous. It's like the ApleFrosting company suing anybody who sells any kind of apple product wit "apple" in the name.
I lost a lot of my esteem for Sun with this. I wonder if it has anything to do with Oracle?
Free Martian Whores!
Sun: "Because the dominant portion of the SparkFun mark, namely, SPARK, is phonetically identical and nearly visually identical to SI's SPARC mark, and because it is used in connection with identical goods, we believe confusion is likely to occur among the relevant purchasing group."
And here I thought that dominant portion of SparkFun was "Fun"!
The counter-suit should be interesting. Hey, maybe SPARC would like to hire Darl to take care of that? I hear he's looking for work now.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
That the dominant part of SPARC is not fun.
Nullius in verba
So when is the FARC going to send Fark.com a C&D?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I can't wait for IBM to sue BMW because after all, both of them share the letters "BM" and that might confuse a lot of people. Disney could probably have a go at McDonald's because after all, Donald is the name of a famous Disney character....
Hopefully Sparkfun won't get a retarded judge, and this will be laughed out of court.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Sun has nothing to do with this. SPARC International owns the trademark, not Sun.
eclecti.cc
Sun named their product line after a natural phenomenon, a spark, and is now going after any one using the natural phenomenon's namesake?
No. Sun Microsystems is a member of Sparc International, along with a slew of other companies (TI, Hitachi, Fujitsu, etc, etc -- http://www.sparc.org/members.html), but Sparc International != Sun.
IANAL, but Sparc International has a legal obligation to protect its trademark, correct? They may not want to pick on SparkFun but if they don't demonstrably protect their trademark, they can lose it.
How do you protect your trademark without sending out C&Ds?
First SparkFun get a stupid cease & desist, *then* it gets slashdotted. Some days, it all just goes downhill from the git-go...
Generally, bash is superior to python in those environments where python is not installed.
You can also offer others a license to use your mark for some nominal fee, I believe. From a legal perspective (IANAL, by the way) I think that's probably just as good as litigating it. The problem probably comes from disagreement about what constitutes a reasonable nominal fee, and the licensee's concerns about their ability to control the use of their mark (eg, if someone who doesn't like the licensee tried to "steal" their mark by going through the licensor).
So SPARC now lays claim to http://www.*sparc*.* as well as http://www.*spark*.*
Does this mean I can't register www.sparccankissmyass.com without getting a C&D letter?
A little misunderstanding? Galileo and the Pope had a little misunderstanding...
So SPARC is something like SPARK...
And some nitwit company that has seen its stock price fall a huge percentage because it spends far too much on psychotic lawyers than it does on R&D is filing a lawsuit about 'Spark' being close to 'sparc'. And this idiot lawyers have convinced someone that they 'own' the word 'spark'.
Am I reading this correct? Please tell me that this is not Sun Microsystems! Founded by geniuses, creators and leaders in the workstation industry, the true visionary company of the valley.
You would think that these guys would be too embarrassed to show their faces in the valley again after something as stupid as this.
These guys have no shame.
Since the world's population is bursting and there is ...so...much....surplus...talent available, why don't we just put all these dumb fucks out of their (and our) misery. "take out the trash, clean out the crusty, and let them spend the rest of their days walking through the streets of SoHo in the rain."
What! There's a law against that too? Law or no law, sooner or later, it's going to be cheaper just to kill them all.
It's a shame that with all their education and vested options, they still don't realize this.
Aren't you required to vigorously defend your trademark or else stand to lose it?
Yeah, it may be ridiculous, and yeah, a judge may decide that it is indeed ridiculous as well. But they -still- have to go through these claims in order to vigorously defend.
Vigorous defense of one's trademark does not demand that one pursue ridiculous or even questionable claims. All it means is that you can't knowingly allow violation of your trademark, then attempt to enforce it later. Where a case appears legally questionable, or outright stupid, there is absolutely no duty to pursue it. All the normal rules of civil procedure apply, including Rule 11. "Vigorous defense of trademark" is not a defense for filing a claim unsupported by law.
I am a geek attorney, but not your geek attorney unless you've already retained me. This is not legal advice.
(Removed by user)
I don't want all of my hacker/maker sites slashdotted at once!
SparkFun should be laughing all the way to the bank, once they get past the lawyerly nuisance.
I might agree with you, but their trademark is "SPARC", not "Spark".
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
Aren't you required to vigorously defend your trademark or else stand to lose it?
That doesn't mean you're obligated to make over-reaching claims about your trademark. The obviously correct position would be to send C&D letters to people using 'sparc' without permission. Perhaps even to a company that sold "spark servers". That's all that's needed. Their trademark on "SPARC" would not be weakened at all by the continued existence of "SparkFun".
Firefox warning; apparently www.sparc.org/index.html has been reported as an attack site. Nice.
...the unrelated but more interesting SpankFun!
Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
"Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
That's a very narrow interpretation. If you allow your trademark to be diluted, then you weaken your ability to defend it later, even with more meritorious claims against different infringers.
Failure to defend a trademark can be used to overturn the trademark assignment if contested.
IANAL, obviously. But I've been responsible for trademarks at several employers, and had lengthy conversations with attorneys on the matter -- this is just my understanding based on those conversations. Of course, since they IP attorneys get paid to contest infringing use, they are motivated to ensure I want to vigorously defend my trademarks...
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
"Vigorous defense of trademark" is not a defense for filing a claim unsupported by law.
Here's the issue: the only place where questions of law are settled is a court room. Which in turn means that the only way to find out whether something is unsupported by law is to file a lawsuit and see where the chips fall.
Yes, some cases are highly unlikely to succeed. I doubt Sun would be able to successfully sue the Pope for trademark infringement. But I don't think that anyone here knows enough law to unequivocally state that this claim is unsupported by law.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Sparkfun police spoil everything!
Sparc are no fun!
Sparks fly at Sparc!
No more Sparkfun!
Sparc missing from this relationship!
Sparkfun fight begins!
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
RE/tarded.
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
Aren't you required to vigorously defend your trademark or else stand to lose it?
If they were genuinely concerned about losing their trademark, while admitting that SparkFun is not at all likely to be confused with Sparc, they could grant SparkFun trademark rights for $1. Basically tell them "we agree not to sue you for infringing what we believe is our rightful trademark, in exchange for consideration".
I'm tired of that damn "the law made me do it!" excuse. No, it didn't. There are plenty of remedies outside the courts that can accomplish the same ends.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
I've ordered from both companies, but not anymore. I will continue to support SparkFun, even if they are forced to change their name. Sun/Oracle can go to hell.
Do lawyers just not have enough to do or something?
"Hey, what's the legal department up to?"
"Not really all that much right now."
"Well what are we paying them for?! Have them sue someone or something."
Here's the issue: the only place where questions of law are settled is a court room. Which in turn means that the only way to find out whether something is unsupported by law is to file a lawsuit and see where the chips fall.
That is not a correct conclusion. Questions of law are only settled by the court, but many questions have already been settled. An attorney's job is to research existing law (both statutes and prior cases that have been decided in court) and make a prediction about what should happen if a new case is taken to court. Sometimes it's impossible to reach a conclusion, other times the conclusion is nearly certain; usually it's in between. The rules of ethics and of civil procedure prohibit attorneys from bringing suit when their argument is unsupported by existing law or a reasonable extension of existing law. This is rarely enforced with vigor, because there is often some type of legitimate argument that can be made to support even a very weak case - but not always.
But I don't think that anyone here knows enough law to unequivocally state that this claim is unsupported by law.
Don't be too sure about that. I'm not a trademark attorney, so I wouldn't venture a conclusive opinion about this case without doing some additional research first - but some here may be qualified to do so. With that said, my prior post was not intended to state that this case is meritless. I don't think it is. I think it's weak, but plausible. It's weak on the facts, not the law. If I were SPARC's attorney, I would have discouraged them from pursuing it.
I am a geek attorney, but not your geek attorney unless you've already retained me. This is not legal advice.
Arms length can include "by the throat". I'm pretty sure that Sparc International went to Sun (and maybe a few others) to vet this first, just in case it was a life raft for rats scurrying overboard.
Losing the last bit of goodwill is just what Sun needs right now.
....like the way The UPS Store and UPS are (two separate companies entirely!), you would never know the difference that they are tow different companies with a good relationship sharing brand recognition.
THIS IS SPARKFUN!
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
...what are they going to call sparkplugs now?
I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
electronic components has no difficulty differentiating "SPARC" from "SparkFun". While a SPARC CPU is in fact an electronic component, it is one that can only be used if one is building a specialized sort of computer (i.e. one that won't run x86 code and can't run any Windows / OSX apps). If one is going to design an electronic circuit with any hope of functioning, one has to know EXACTLY what components one is designing into it.
The population of actual electronic component customers likely to mistake SPARC for SparkFun is exactly zero. There is NO public likely to be confused by this.
Tech Public Policy stuff
The Guardians of Clan Donald
(Na Dionadairean Clann Dhomhnuill)
By authority of Lord Macdonald,
Premier Clan Chief of Clan Donald.
22 Dunecht Road, Westhill, Aberdeenshire, AB32 6RH.
Tele: 01224 740073
PRESS RELEASE
Lord Macdonald of Macdonald, premier clan chief of Clan Donald, has appointed Ronald W McDonald to be Sergeant-Major at Arms of the Guardians of Clan Donald: the linear descendant of the chief's bodyguard. It will be open to all Macdonalds and their septs, dependents, and descendants, who are in good standing in the community. Successful applicants will be enlisted as Sergeants at Arms and issued with a Warrant in the form of a Certificate which is suitable for framing. The cost of membership is £1 (postal orders please) or £2 sterling for overseas applicants.
The Guardians of Clan Donald aim to uphold and protect the dignity and honour of the ancient and honourable name of Clan Donald by all legal means. One specific aim is to offer moral support to Mary Blair, proprietor of McMunchies, a small sandwich bar in Fenny Stratford, Buckinghamshire, who is being threatened with legal action by McDonald's Restaurants, the fast food chain, for daring to use the prefix "Mc" in the name of her shop. When interviewed in BBC2's "The Money Programme" a top trademark lawyer made it clear that McDonald's have not a legal leg to stand on. Instead they rely on their unlimited financial resources to bully small businesses who cannot afford to fight back.
This type of business ethics might be good practice in the USA but it is singularly un-British. McDonald's have registered most names beginning with 'Mc' as trademarks, not with any intention of using them, but to try and stop anyone of that name setting up a restaurant. Even my own name Ronald McDonald has been registered as one of their trademarks. This is an attack on Scottish culture when even our very names are hijacked.
It has been stated by government ministers that a person is fully entitled to use their own name for business. But McDonald's has grown so large it is supra-national, with an advertising budget bigger than the Gross National Product of many countries. It is time that the government took in hand this matter of bullying of small businesses by companies such as McDonald' s. Perhaps this might be a subject for debate by a future Scottish Parliament.
If McDonald's persists in its action against McMunchies they are disgracing the ancient and honourable name of Macdonald. In the days when a clan chief had the power of pit and gallows the ultimate penalty for shaming the clan name was to be flung over a cliff but it seems unlikely that any executive of McDonald's Restaurants would volunteer for this!
Injustice and bullying are matters that concerns everyone and not just those affiliated to one clan. To this end, the Guardians of Clan Donald have decided to launch a petition calling upon McDonald's Restaurants to drop their action against Mary Blair of McMunchies Sandwich Bar. Petitions should be sent to the Guardians of Clan Donald or direct to McDonald's Restaurants, 11-59 High Road, East Finchley, London N2 8AW. (Fax Number 0181-700 7050 Telephone 0181-700 7000). A personal letter, telephone call or fax to McDonald's condemning their action is also effective.
Any assistance from the media would be much appreciated.
Back to Media Page
Press Index
Likely to cause confusion in the minds of purchasers? What are they smoking?
I've bought bits off SparkFun in the past. It never even occurred to me that there was a vague similarity between them and SPARC international until I heard about the C&D letter. Not even a moron would confuse Sparc International and SparkFun. Different logos, only tangentally related markets (they both are involved in the pushing around of electrons, but one designs CPUs, the other has instructions on how to solder tricky packages).
Bah. Remember that SPARC backwards is CRAPS.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Of course, since they IP attorneys get paid to contest infringing use, they are motivated to ensure I want to vigorously defend my trademarks...
Lawyers tend to take this type of action when the economy goes bad or the competition is whomping them. Case in point: Nokia suing Apple.
Awhile back I established a rule for myself of tossing in the trash basket any resume that claimed work or education experience with SPARK processors or SPARK workstations.
Think back to when Apple Records filed a trademark infringement suit against Apple Computer. It sure seemed odd at the time. Years later Apple is in the music distribution business. Who'd a thunk it? Right now, SPARC and SparkFun seem distinct enough, but when SPARC architecture is available in the microcontrollers on the development kits sold at SparkFun it's not so cut-and-dried.
Try selling a cola named 'koke fun' or 'pepze fun' and see how long it takes for the law suits to start rolling in. The name is not exact, but it is close enough to elicit a miss-understanding, at least in spoken English.
Bye!
Trademarks aren't really that clear-cut. It's not like copyright; verbatim reproduction of the mark is not a key element of the offense. Trademark infringement is defined in terms of the potential for consumer confusion.
Now, if you mean to say that because the C is part of what makes the SPARC mark distinct, and therefore a name containing Spark (spelled correctly) isn't likely to cause confusion, you'd have a viable - but subjective - point. In fact that would be my basis for siding with SparkFun at the moment.
However, if SPARC's lawyers were to follow that reasoning, then SPARC would have every raeson to dismiss them and replace them with someone that would advocate for the mark.
Well sure, but do you expect a lawyer getting paid by the hour to take that chance with his client mone--uh trademarks?
Google search output
This site may harm your computer.
www.sparc.org/
Sun is not Sparc but a Sparc compliant company. As a trademark holder I know the US gov makes it very clear that you can lose your trademark for not defending it. I would bet Sparc doesn't care about sparkfun but their lawyers do because Americans do stupid things like vote a load of lawyers into the government who watch over their own and have made it so what Sparc's lawyers are doing is effectively a requirement for having a trademark.
Lawyers love to make work for their own which is why lawyers should be banned from running for office.
Jeff Dunham had a comedy central special called Spark Of Insanity - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epsx2dlQQ6k
I could go on.
The difference there, though, is I think I would wholeheartedly support any kind of legal action against Jeff Dunham...
Bow-ties are cool.
Holy crap! an entire industry sells things called Spark Plugs! Sparc needs to send in troops to Bosch and Delco and sue everyone!! SUE SUE SUE!
Honestly, it should be written in that law that if your "defense" is completely stupid, you muse pay 2 million plus court costs to your victim.
In this case, their defense is completely and utterly stupid. I think the CEO needs the death penalty over this one.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I visit http://sparkfun.com/ and I find a company that sells electronic parts and kits and things of that nature. I attempt to visit http://sparc.org/ and I get gigantic warnings from both Google and from Mozilla/Firefox telling me it's an "attack site" and it may "harm my computer". I see no basis for their lawsuit; Sparkfun obviously sells electronics, sparc.org obviously creates malware. Case closed.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Scumbag lawyers don't get paid when gentlemen act like gentlemen and do things like that.
This is about scumbag IP lawyers chasing ambulances looking for money.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
> I might agree with you, but their trademark is "SPARC", not "Spark".
So why did the New York Times successfully stop Infocom from publishing the New Zork Times? By your logic, Infocom could have simply pointed out that the spelling was different, and that would have been that.
Will they be suing Sun Microsystems, or will Sun be suing them?
sudo mod parent up
Legal attack?
IMHO, it's the c and the all caps lettering that makes their trademark distinctive.
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
It's not just the spelling. SPARC has a C, spark does not. SPARC is in all caps, sparkfun is all lowercase (in their logo). The whole name is sparkfun, not just spark.
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
I submitted this as news to OSNews the other day, lemme just quote what I said there:
The truly absurd part is that Sparkfun is made up of two real words - and their biggest part of the claim is about the root word "Spark" - so... because they've trademarked a bunch of things with their made up "Sparc" acronym, nobody can use the real word "spark" anymore? ... and to think I thought the whole SyFy malarkey was absurd.
Wonder who they'll go after next... Sony for using "PlayStation" because they have "SparcStation" previously trademarked? AMD64 becuase "Sparc64" predates it?
Oh wait, those companies would be big enough to be able to afford to fight back. I wonder if SparkFun has pockets deep enough.
I went looking for trouble, and boy, I found her...
Although that excuse is used frequently, you are NOT required to behave like a braying ass and sue the whole world for using a common English word that sounds like your misspelling as part of their name. You can even defend your mark by giving the other guy a friendly call and each agreeing to point out that you're not the other guy.
I have worked on sparcstations and have visited sparkfun.com many times. I have never been at all confused nor have I even suspected that one might own the other.
sudo make me a sandwich.
tips hat to XKCD...
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
file a lawsuit and see where the chips fall.
this is soon to be oracle. they don't just drop chips, they cancel whole entire projects!
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Yes that same remark tickled my funny bone too. Too bad you needed the karma that bad to repost/plagiarize it.
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
(at least) two problems:
1) A cola is exactly the same product as Coke and Pepsi, so you are clearly in the same market. SparkFun does not produce computers. The better analogy would be something along the lines of selling cookies or some other product in the "food products" but not "drinks" realm.
2) Coke and Pepsi are both fairly unique words and don't have strong associations with drinks or foods other than by virtue of the trademarked product names. It'd be extremely difficult to come up with a convincingly legitimate reason to name a beverage something phonetically similar to these trademarks. Perhaps if it's derived from Coca or coal byproducts... "Spark" is an ordinary English word with very obvious connections to electronics. If you decide to use a term like that as a trademark, well, sorry you will have a much narrower trademark claim.
I might agree with you, but their trademark is "SPARC", not "Spark".
I guess you're that one person who always pronouces it "spar-see" ;-)
Geez I know Sparc has been slowly dying for last decade but this is getting kinda desperate.
A filing of opposition to the SparkFun's application would not be very surprising.
The point of the following exercise is to show the required elements for trademark infringement and plausible arguments for SI. There are counters to every aspect of my likelihood of confusion analysis. However, I would be shocked if a court said the claim was so frivolous as warrant the extreme measure of Rule 11 sanctions.
Trademark infringment requires 3 factors. (If you want the long complicated statutory version see 15 USC 1114.)
1. Owning a Mark
2. The Mark must be valid.
3. The 3rd party's use (in commerce) in connection with goods or services is likely to cause confusion.
SI clearly meets 1, likely meets 2, and SparkFun uses its potential mark in commerce connected with goods and services.
The only question would be whether SparkFun's mark would likely cause confusion.
The test for likelihood of confusion varies some by circuit but some form of these factors are generally used. They are the ones used by the 9th circuit. A plaintiff does not need to prove all 8 and Courts apply varying degrees of weight to each element.
1. Strength of the mark Examined by length of time in use, the marks distinctiveness and how well known the mark is.
-"Sparc" has been registered for 20 years and seems known worldwide to purchasers.
2. Proximity of the goods Sometimes physical proximity, but usually how similar the goods are to each other.
- The goods can be classified as integrated computer circuit and circuit boards.
3. Similarity of the marks Some courts have held that logo and typeface is only one consideration. Sound, meaning and impression can be examined as well. Example "Kokeup" for a soft drink was found to infringe on Coca-cola's "Coke" mark.
-The marks sound the same or similar enough.
4. Evidence of actual confusion Direct testimony is helpful as are surveys. Usually a confusion rate of %15 is good enough to satisfy this element and I heard of cases accepting as low as 8.5%.
-SI would likely have to conduct a survey among the relevant group. This factor does not need to be proven, but courts are generally more willing to find infringement upon a showing a actual confusion.
5. Marketing channels used
-Both companies use the Internet, maybe ads in similar or the same magazines. They probably also use other similar channels for marketing that I don't know about.
6. Type of goods and the degree of care likely to be exercised by the purchaser.
-Purchasers of microprocessors are likely relatively discerning and so this element would be in SparkFun's favor. But courts have held the this element is examined compared to the least savvy purchaser of the goods so SI would have room to argue.
7. Defendant's intent in selecting the mark.
-SparkFun almost certainly acted in good faith when selecting its mark. However, this element is never decisive and usually pertains to what remedy the plaintiff can seek.
8. Likelihood of expansion of the product lines.
-I have no idea if SI plans to sell the same sort of good that SparkFun sells. However, SI can frame the goods as "computer hardware including integrated circuits and circuit boards" and claim SI is already involved in the same product line.
In sum, SI has plausible arguments for 6 of the 8 factors for likelihood of confusion off the top of my head. As a result, an infringement claim by SI would not be seen as frivolous.
All this being said, I doubt SI would actually take this to court. C&D letters are easy write and cheap to send. A decision to file a complaint in Federal Court and then litigate it are signifi
That's not a great deal. First you tell me I'm infringing on your TM, but I can buy a license for $1. I go along with it to save some legal wrangling. Then the next year you decide the 'opening special' is over, and the license fee is now $1,000,000. It's much harder for me to argue that you don't have a case, because I've already bought a license from you.
This is not Sun Microsystems!
It is SPARC International.
There are you happy now?
Perhaps you are a bit quick on the draw with your unwarranted criticism.
It is NOT Sun. It is SPARC Inrternational.
Point your enthusiasm and anger in a more productive direction, please.
You can also offer others a license to use your mark for some nominal fee, I believe. From a legal perspective (IANAL, by the way) I think that's probably just as good as litigating it. The problem probably comes from disagreement about what constitutes a reasonable nominal fee, and the licensee's concerns about their ability to control the use of their mark (eg, if someone who doesn't like the licensee tried to "steal" their mark by going through the licensor).
Why would SparkFun pay for the license?
Seems to me SPARC is playing CRAPS with any good will they have left.
Yikes.
http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=http://www.sparc.org/&hl=en
What is the current listing status for sparc.org?
Site is listed as suspicious - visiting this web site may harm your computer.
Part of this site was listed for suspicious activity 9 time(s) over the past 90 days.
What happened when Google visited this site?
Of the 244 pages we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 3 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent. The last time Google visited this site was on 2009-10-22, and the last time suspicious content was found on this site was on 2009-10-22.
Malicious software includes 12 trojan(s), 8 exploit(s), 6 scripting exploit(s). Successful infection resulted in an average of 2 new process(es) on the target machine.
Malicious software is hosted on 6 domain(s), including keymydomains.com/, ncenterpanel.cn/, updatedate.cn/.
2 domain(s) appear to be functioning as intermediaries for distributing malware to visitors of this site, including keymydomains.com/, specialgt.com/.
This site was hosted on 1 network(s) including AS21844 (THEPLANET).
I know you were labeled Troll, but I'll bite:
No, Sun didn't name SPARC after a natural phenomenon. SPARC stands for Scalable Processor ARChitecture, so that makes it an acronym which happens to sound just like the English word "spark."
I deal with a lot of technically clueless attorneys. They really have no idea about technology other than the fact that the computer is a black box that they use to word process, and email, and occasionally listen to case based audio files.
In the case of the SPARC v. Sparkfun it's just some attorneys with a hair across their ass.
Who wrote the rule about vigorously defending trade-marks? The principle beneficiaries of risible litigation.
What cracks me up is the implication by Sparc Industries that their customer base is, in the main, dumber than a bag of hammers. If I were a customer of Sparc Industries, I think I'd have grounds here for a class action defamation of character suit.
Sparc distinguishes itself from the myriad businesses that have "Spark" in their name by virtue of their spelling. Rage...rising...
Contracts can be written "in perpetuity".
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Sparkfun from the good old days.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/68/Old_Sparky.jpg
http://www.slate.com/id/32298/
In GOD we trust, all others we monitor.
Dear Sparc International a.k.a. Prototypical Stupid Bully: "Identical goods," my evil eye, you asswipe pus-filled scum from Hades! Eat shit and die. May your wart grow a truly loathsome hairy sub-wart that dare not be seen in public. May your corporate bowel be irretrievably blocked. May your tinnitus have tinnitus and may your Morgellons Syndrome be spectacularly pathological.
Vigorous defense of one's trademark does not demand that one pursue ridiculous or even questionable claims. All it means is that you can't knowingly allow violation of your trademark, then attempt to enforce it later. Where a case appears legally questionable, or outright stupid, there is absolutely no duty to pursue it.
Pardon me for saying so, but if a case is legally questionable then that's exactly the reason to pursue it. The question gets answered by the courts.
Let's take a look at SparkFun's defense against Sparc's claims:
ANALYSIS: Sorry, but that's pretty thin. If the name was SparcFun, it would still be "phonetically identical" (which is the actual claim). I think everybody agrees SparcFun would likely be infringing. So why not SparkFun since the two sound exactly the same? The claim here is "phonetically identical," as in "sounds alike," and they do sound alike. And this isn't Sparc's whole claim, it's one part of a claim, so let's move on to the next part..
ANALYSIS: Pretty much same as above. Part of Sparc's claims is that the mark could be mistaken for "one of SI's many Sparc-derived brands." Sparc is saying that if the market has heard of SparcTop, Sparc Shop, SparcStation, SparcSummit, SparcPhone, SparcWorks, etc -- all of which are Sparc Inc. trademarks -- then there could be some confusion with SparkFun. Sounds reasonable to me. Also, on the "visually similar" part, SparkFun's logo seems to use the same red color as Sparc Inc.'s logo. Check out Sparc's color guidelines for its trademark licensees. They specify the exact Pantone red you should use. They even go so far as to state you should never use orange and green -- why, I have no idea, but I'm sure it has something to do with trademarks.
ANALYSIS: Now they're just playing stupid. Sparc explains in its letter exactly what is meant by "identical goods" as defined by the terms of trademark law: "computer hardware, including integrated circuits and circuit boards." In case you don't know how trademark works, you register a trademark under a certain category. Sparc probably does not have a trademark in the area of soft drinks, for example. But it does have a trademark in the area of integrated circuits and circuit boards, which is exactly what SparkFun sells.
ANALYSIS: And now they just sound like kids in a schoolyard. Nobody calls up Sparc Inc. looking for servers, either, and this has nothing to do with Sparc's trademark claim.
And just to add weight to Sparc's case, the C&D letter specifically points out that Sparc Inc. has owned the primary trademark since 1989. SparkFun was founded in 2003 as a Web site. For all we know, it was running on a SparcServer. I think SparkFun is going to have a difficult time proving that it wasn't aware of the Sparc trademark, even if it insists that its own mark doesn't resemble Sparc's at all.
In summary, I'm sorry, but I think Sparc Inc. has a pretty solid claim here. It's fine to post a response on SparkFun's Web site, but if I w
Breakfast served all day!
A name like Sparc wasn't a typo by somebody trying to spell Spark. It was a deliberate marketing decision to create a name that sounded cool and wasn't spelled like the generic word because that probably couldn't be trademarked without conflicting with lots of other existing electrical and electronic trademarks. SparkFun is also a name that includes sparkiness in it, and is differentiated from the generic English word in different ways.
Besides, doesn't somebody already have a business method patent on suing everybody who's got a name even vaguely similar to yours when you don't have a legitimate case? SPARC Inc could get themselves in a lot of trouble for violating it.
And if anything, the Girl Genius folks could now sue SI for trying to get into the Spark business when they're clearly not that bright... On the other hand, the SparkFun people make lots of cool little gadgets and generally support Mad Science, so they're just fine.
Disclaimer: The Sun-2 in my attic is not an Ultrasparc-2. Nor is it a Sparcstation-2. Some of us have been in the Sun business for a long time.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
So it's actually S.P.ARC.
S.P.ARC. vs SparkFun.
Yeah, only idiots (and trolling lawyers) would confuse the two.
I'm pretty sure I'm not at risk of accidentally buying from SPARC when I meant to buy from SparkFun. Sorry, SPARC.
It's about the name, not about earning money with license fees
This reminds me of the case of Zendroid, a Finnish robotics company that was asked to change its name by Google and Lucasfilm. Of course, Lucasfilm doesn't want anyone else to use anything with "droid". As for Google, they didn't exactly invent the word "android", and besides, what does a mobile OS have to do with humanoid robots?
http://www.zenrobotics.com/?page=news#2008-11-28
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
If you want lots of current and future tech professionals to hate you, keep hassling small businesses like SparkFun. Your trademark case against them borders on frivolous. It is a battle that you are unlikely to win in court, and that you will certainly lose in the court of public opinion. Stick with your bread and butter mission: championing the SPARC architecture. Leave popular "Davids" alone, unless the goal is to smear your own brand name.
I took a class on trademark once and nearly stayed awake through it. I seem to recall that you look at, among other things, how confused consumers are likely to be. The two marks being identical doesn't matter.
(said with "King & I" diction) Et Cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
There's something about this, and cases like this, that just stinks. We all know it does, yet sometimes it's hard to put a finger on it. For me, the amorality of the lawyers just rubs me the wrong way. Someone says, "Mr. Lawyer, I'd like to sue X for Y, and I'll pay you handsomely for it." And the lawyer does, because it pays. It doesn't matter if the reason is bogus, it doesn't matter that X has to spend lots of money on a legal defense against something that has no merit. It only matters that the lawyer is being paid.
Of course, at this point, someone will probably pop off that I'm some sort of Commie or something. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Just because you CAN perform a service (regardless of whether you're being paid for it) doesn't mean you SHOULD. I have numerous skills, and I almost always expect to be compensated for my work, but there are some things that I simply will not build, for any price -- because I would consider it wrong to do so. It seems to me (and perhaps to a lot of people) that there is a dearth of lawyers who would say in the face of a paying potential customer, "No, I won't take your case. You're asking me to do something that's dishonest and immoral. Now get the hell out of my office."
There's a difference between working for money and working MERELY for money. In that sense I would term the latter type of lawyer as also a mercenary, and there seem to be entirely too many of them.
How do you deter a mercenary? I invite suggestions, but the only way I know of is through fear. With the collective intelligence of those on this forum, it shouldn't be hard to come up with some creative ideas on how to make a mercenary lawyer think twice about working MERELY for money.
Early today Sun announced it would be serving all Christian Churches with a cease and desist order, in the confusion involving there use of the phrase "Son of God". There legal department concluded the phrase was virtually identical to the phrase "Sun, God of all servers", and should be considered an illegal infringement of the Sun name and trademarks.
It looks like Darl McBride got a new job.
How many more years will slashdot have an off-by-one error on your Score in your profile?
I just want to make it clear, on Sun's behalf, that this trademark action was not initiated by Sun and that all the hatred expressed towards Sun on this issue is misplaced. SPARC International is an independent trade association (it has been for a very long time) and makes its own decisions about trademark enforcement. I wouldn't have acted the way they are, and I have asked Sun's representative to SPARC International to investigate the issue, but beyond using its status as one of many licensees and members, I'm not aware of anything more that Sun can do.
S.
(speaking officially for once)
To be clear, SPARC International is an independent trade association. You should not be blaming Sun, Hitachi, Fujitsu or any other SPARC licensee for this.
S.
First I heard of it was on Friday evening.
I don't want to spoil all the good Fun(tm) in this lively discussion, but here are some actual facts to consider:
I serve as Sun's representative to SPARC Int'l (to whom WebMink referred, above). As you can imagine, I've been hearing about this issue this week.
My understanding is that a resolution between SI and SparkFun has been in progress (despite the negative chatter that has been going on). Let's chill out for a few days and wait to hear how that turns out. There really isn't anything to discuss until the two companies have completed their talks ... at which time we can either all go home satisfied, or if we want, get all riled up again ;-).
But please don't dump on Sun for something between two *other* companies.